Bastiaan

Bretveld

Master th

esis: Toward

s Olym

pic G

ames 3.0

Towards Olympic Games 3.0Master thesis

Student: Bastiaan Bretveld | January 2014 | Master Environmental & Infrastructure Planning | University of Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences | Supervisor: Dr. C. Zuidema7074277812919

ISBN 978-1-291-70742-790000

Table of contents

List of abbreviations III

Part I: Context 11 Context of the Olympic Games 3

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31.2 The Development of the IOC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3 The cycles of the Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

2 The Research 112.1 Cause of the research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.2 Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.3 Research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.4 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.5 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.6 Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142.7 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Part II: Theory 173 Transition Management 19

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.2 General sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.3 Complexity theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.4 Transition theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243.5 Governance of transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4 Olympic theory 314.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.2 Governance of the Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314.3 Sustainable Olympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Part III: Analysis 415 Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions 43

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.2 the ecological aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.3 the economical aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.4 the social aspect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6 Olympic transition 496.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496.2 The Olympic structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496.3 The Olympic procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516.4 Towards a future vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Part IV: 57Olympic Games 3 0 577 London 2012 59

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.2 Preparations of the 2012 Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597.3 During the Olympic and Paralympic Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627.4 The long-term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 627.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

8 Future of the Olympic Movement 65

Part V: 69Conclusions 699 Conclusions 71

9.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719.3 Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729.4 Epilogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Sources 75

Part VI: 83Appendices 83Appendix 1 New Olympic system 85

The process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Appendix 2: Olympic revenues 88Appendix 3: Interviews 89

Appendix 3a: Verslag interview Jurryt van de Vooren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Appendix 3b: Verslag Interview Herbert Wolff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90Appendix 3c: Verslag interview Thysia Pater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Appendix 3d: Verslag Interview Willem de Boer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

List of abbreviations

ATP Association of Tennis Professional NGO non-governmental organizationBOA British Olympic Association NOC National Olympic CommitteeBOC Bid Organizing Committee NRG Nations and Regions GroupCAS Court of Arbitration of Sport OBS Olympic Broadcasting ServicesCSL Commission for Sustainability London OC Olympic CharterDCMS Department for Culture, Media & Sport OCOG Organizing Committee of Olympic GamesFIFA Fédération Internationale de Football Associa-

tionODA Olympic Delivery Authority

GEN Global Ecovillage Network OGI Olympic Games ImpactGLA Greater London Authority OGKS Olympic Games Knowledge ServiceIBC International Broadcast Centre OLC Olympic Legacy CompanyIF International Sport Federation OM Olympic MovementIOC International Olympic Committee OPLC Olympic Park Legacy CompanyIPC International Paralympic Committee SER Social Economic Council (Sociaal Economische

Raad)ISL International Sport and Leisure TOK Transfer of Olympic KnowledgeLDA London Development Agency TOP The Olympic Partner programLLDC London Legacy Development Company UEFA Union of European Football AssociationsLOCOG London Organizing Committee of Olympic

GamesUEL University of East London

MoL Mayor of London UN United NationsMPC Main Press Centre UNEP United Nations Environmental ProgrammeNBA National Basketball Association VROM Ministery of Housing, Planning and Environ-

ment (Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu)

NF National Sport Federation WADA World Anti Doping Agency

Part I: Context

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

3

1. Context of the Olympic Games

1. Context of the Olympic Games

1.1 Introduction

The Olympic Games1 developed to a worldwide, first-class media and commercial event in which the host city is the center of the world. This development through more than a sporting event can be distinguished by two characteristics (XML Architects, 2012):• The ideological basis. The 1896 Games were organized

from the ideal that competitive sports would contrib-ute to international brotherhood and peace. This ideal evolved during the time through the ideology of ‘Olym-pism’. This ideology is based on the Olympic icons and rituals like the Olympic flag, torch and oath. The cen-tral message here is stated by the International Olympic Committee: ‘‘place everywhere sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to encour-aging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity’’ (IOC, 2013:11). These principles are hardly changed since the time of Pierre de Coubertin (Zakus & Skinner, 2008).

• The utopian potential. Hosting the Olympic Games is such a big challenge for a city that it is impossible to real-ize it without a vision on the future. Hosting the Games has an enormous symbolic meaning for the city and the rest of the world, it brings prestige for the city and the link with the ideals of Olympism is often seen as a sym-

1 If referred to the Olympic Games as an event, also the Paralympic Games are meant. On the spatial scale there is no difference, the Paralympics use in majority the same venues.

bol of progress and modernity. The story a city wants to tell with hosting the Games is important in the alloca-tion.

With this in mind, the IOC and the overarching Olympic Movement developed to a non-governmental organization, which keeps the middle between the United Nations and the World Football association FIFA. The IOC is sports associ-ation like the FIFA, but also acts like a non-governmental stakeholder outside the sport; in this respect, it is more like the UN. So it is something in between. The Olympic Games are the most visible aspect of the bigger context of the Olym-pic Movement; this will be further elaborated in chapter 4.

The Olympic Movement is the overarching entity of the five aspects of the Olympic structure (Chappelet & Kübler-Mab-bott, 2008). This consists of the: • International Olympic Committee (IOC); • Organizing Committees of the Olympic Games

(OCOG); • International Sport Federations (IFs); • National Olympic Committees (NOCs) and • National Sports Federations (NFs).

In this, the IOC is the ‘supreme authority’ of the Olympic Movement. The distinction between the IOC and the Olym-pic Movement is essential. This research focuses on the OCOG’s (the Olympic Games) and the IOC as the central actor in the movement (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008; Zakus & Skinner, 2008 & Theodoraki, 2007). This first chap-ter of the research tries to draw the context of the Olympic

The worldwide society competes on different levels with each other, one of these meet-ings of sportive performance are the Olympic Games. These competitive meetings devel-op itself along with the developing worldwide society. One of the characteristics of the Olympic Games in this worldwide society is the urban renewal strategy, which is connect-ed to the Games. Since the first modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens, the Games developed itself to an international mega-event. On behalf of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), it also developed to more than just a sporting event.

4

Part I: Context

Games and the IOC. Hereby will § 1.2 focus on the IOC as-pect, and paragraph 1.3 on the Olympic Games aspect.

1.2 The Development of the IOCBaron Pierre de Coubertin founded the IOC in 1894, as the central governing body of the movement. It is one of the old-est non-governmental organizations (NGO). It started with de Coubertin and fifteen friends as the ‘International Com-mittee for the Olympic Games’. The first event was in 1896 in Athens and after that continued the four-year cycle in 1900 in Paris (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008). From this point, the Olympism tries to achieve an impact beyond sport in other aspects of our lives, two pillars are traditionally part of this strategy: ‘sport’ and ‘culture’. Since the 1990s, a third pillar of ‘environment’ is added. After World War II, with the emergence of the Cold War, the IOC give some financial and logistical support in organizing the Games and became it recognized as a real non-governmental organization. The IOC stayed an organization, based on principles, which are stated in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2013). In the first days it was an organization with volunteer members who represent the IOC around the world. Nowadays, it is still an association of individuals who have the task to promote the IOC world-wide, but not to represent the country in the IOC. All the members are co-opted by existing members of the IOC and elected by secret ballots. This lack of transparent processes is already since the foundation in 1894, and has never really changed. The only real democratic element of the IOC is the election of the athletes in the IOC. One of these 12 athletes

can be nominated by every NOC, this happens during the so-called ‘Session’, an annual meeting by the 105 IOC mem-bers. For some facts of the currently IOC, see Box 1. The ac-tual government of the IOC is the ‘Executive Board’, which meets four or five times a year.

The selection of the host city for the Olympic Games got a specific procedure with two phases. Every NOC can nomi-nate the name of a potential host city. This needs to be done 9 years precede of the Olympics. The NOC needs to fill in a questionform regarding several key points as motivation, vision and spatial concept. On basis of this form, the IOC makes a selection of cities. The cities that do not cope with the requirements are rejected. The cities that do cope get the status of ‘Applicant City’. To elaborate the candidacy, the cities got 6 months to work on their candidacy; the so-called ‘Application files’ do this. This is all evaluated by an IOC Working Group with support of technical experts. The files are checked on realism, planning, and financial aspects and thereby the city’s ‘hardware’, this results in a Working Group Report (‘W-Report’). On basis of this evaluation, the Executive Board selects a number of ‘Candidate Cities’; this also marks the beginning of the second phase. In the following year, the candidate cities produce a bid book and the feasibility will be further investigated. This also comes by a questionform of 250 questions and a special IOC Eval-uation Committee visits each city. During this phase, only the Evaluation Committee members are allowed to visit the candidate countries, no other IOC members. This is also the time of intensive lobbying of cities during internation-

Box 1

The current IOC- 105 members, 32 honorary members, 1 honour member;- 42% of the members is from a democracy, 58% from a pseudo-democracy of dictatorial country;- 69% of the member is 60 years of older (48% above 65);- Sex distribution of 81% men, 19% women;- Geographical distribution of 41% Europe, 22% Asia, 18% Americas, 13% Africa, 6% Oceania;- 16% of the member has an aristocratic background

Source: XML Architects, 2012

5

1. Context of the Olympic Games

al meetings, with at the end a briefing with the conclusions of the Evaluation Committee in an Evaluation Commission Report (‘E-Report’)(Pitts & Liao, 2009). These two phases of selection are further elaborated in chapter 4. During a last, special IOC Session on neutral ground, the cities got their last change to present their bid. It finishes with a secret ballot in which every IOC member has one vote. The trend of the last couple of years is that heads of state try to influence the decision (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). IOC mem-bers from candidate countries are not allowed to vote as their candidate is in the running. The voting rounds repeat until one candidate has the absolute majority (XML Architects, 2012; IOC, 2011b)2. Important in this whole procedure is that cities that want to host the Olympic Games need to meet the requirements of the IOC. It is not allowed to give an own interpretation of the rules. The rules are set by the Olympic Movement and are strictly observed. Next to this process, there are some requirements from the IOC, which are rele-vant to mention here: it is not allowed to host the Games as a country or a combination of cities. If you want to organize a certain sport outside the host city, permission is needed from the IOC and the dates of the Games are determined by the IOC (IOC, 2013).An important aspect is that after the bid procedure is finished and the host city is chosen, there is no real accountability. The only sanction the IOC got, is withdrawing the Games, which is also not good for the reputation of the IOC. After the Games, there is nobody taking the real responsibility and accountability for the promises in the bid book.

The central aim of the IOC is to promote the Olympism through the world. The fundamental principles of the Olym-pism are stated in the Olympic Charter, but are vague and exalted goals (Horne & Whannel, 2012). The Olympic Char-ter is the codification of the fundamental principles of Olym-pism and so the Olympic Movement. Essentially, it serves three main purposes (IOC, 2013: 11):

2 The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) is the formal organizer of the Paralympic Games. The selection of the host city for the Paralympic Games is in hand of the IOC, so the IPC has no influence on this selection and will further not being mentioned as a major stakeholder in the selection procedure.

• It is the basic instrument of a constitutional nature, sets forth and recalls the fundamental principles and essen-tial values;

• It serves the statutes for the IOC;• It defines the main reciprocal rights and obligations of

the three main aspects of the Olympic Movement.

During the last 20 years, the IOC had some problems in achieving their goals. Through the requirements of the IOC, Los Angeles was the only candidate city for the 1984 Olym-pics. The Olympic Games were getting bigger and bigger, and with only amateur athletes and local revenues, it was no lon-ger possible to host the Games. From that year, the IOC lost its struggle against the commercialization. One of the causes was that the IOC acted as a non- democratic closed system. It tries to remain the idealistic and amateur organization of a four-year sports event, but the surrounding environment changed. The costs of investment became too high, the reve-nues stayed on a same level as in the 1960s so this resulted in an imbalance. When Juan Antonio Samaranch was elected as IOC President in 1980, his task was to guide the IOC into the twentieth century (Zakus & Skinner, 2008). The twenti-eth century was already 80 years on the go, so this was maybe a bit late. As a result, in 1982 Samaranch launched a commission to revise the Olympic Charter. With this revision, the IOC was capable of keeping the closed system as it was, except one point, the business model. This was under pressure of the Los Angeles organization, they only want to host within their own frameworks (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren). The non-democratic characteristic of the IOC remained by this.With the new business model, the IOC was able to finance more side programs like the Olympic Solidarity program. The television revenues and sponsor earning took a central place. The Los Angeles Games were the first to implement this new model, but the IOC was too naïve in the contractual relationships so the most revenues went to the Los Angeles Organizing Committee (LAOCOG)(Barney et al, 2002).According to this misunderstanding, the IOC wanted to for-malize the agreements. Together with International Sport & Leisure (ISL) they also formulated the Olympic Programme

6

Part I: Context

(nowadays known as The Olympic Partners program: TOP), the worldwide sponsorship program to take a better advan-tage of the revenues and commercial opportunities. Also a television commission was set up for the negotiations with the broadcasters. The aim was to generate more commercial returns for the IOC. Here the conflict of the amateur values came by. The once volunteer organization was now driven by sponsorships, television rights and merchandising of stamps and coins. To keep the amateur status to the outside world, it was initialized within the IOC (Zakus & Skinner, 2008).This was also the time were the Winter Games cycle was split up from the Summer Games cycle. In 1986, the IOC decid-ed to reschedule the Winter Games in between the Summer Games. This was first introduced in the 1994 Lillehammer Games. The reason for this was twofold. First, it was better for the television schedule, two big events in one year is hard to manage with other television programs. Second, for the TOP program, it was more attractive to get the attention ev-ery two years, instead of two times in one year, and than a break of four year. After the 1992 Olympics in Albertville, the aspect of sustainability emerged. A central motto of the 1992 Winter edition was ‘Back to nature’, in which came for-ward the lack of attention to sustainability. Thus, the IOC had to do something with this. The first step was the 1994 Olympics in Lillehammer, under the responsibility of Prime Minister Brundtland (former president of the ‘Our common future’ report), and the Cooperative Agreement of the IOC and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to raise awareness and educate people about sustainability. This developed through a ‘Third Pillar’ of Olympism and the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21. In connection to the envi-ronmental aspect, the democratic aspect might be included. One of the core concepts of sustainability is democracy be-cause the including of the social and environmental aspect next to the economic aspect. This results in more discus-sion, tension and critique; and thereby in a more democratic process, so the moral aspect of democracy. Also the weigh of pros and cons between different pespectives is an aspect of importance of sustainability, the more pragmatic aspect. It gives no guarantee, but it does have a positive influence (De Roo & Porter, 2006; Rotmans et al., 2001; Rotmans,

2003). The environmental sustainability, such as the use of renewable sources, less use air polluting products and the use of environmental impact assessment become part of the stakeholders regular activities (IOC, 1999). Inspired by the UNCED Agenda 21 (IOC, 1999) started the IOC an action program builds around three objectives of the Agenda 21 (IOC, 1999: 23):• ‘Improve socio-economic conditions;• Conservation and management of resources for sustain-

able development;• Strengthening the role of major groups’.

This has been translated in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2013: 17): ‘to encourage and support a responsible concern for en-vironmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport’. The Sydney Olympics in 2000 were the first the ap-plication of the sustainability goals and Sydney made a good first step (Furrer, 2002). Since then it is on the agenda for every bid, characterized by a very top-down approximation. After the first step from the bottom, the IOC imposes the re-quirements top-down in which in many countries there is no person with the influence of Brundtland to really make the step to a sustainable Olympic Games (Cantelon & Letters, 2000).

With solving the commercial problem, this was also the provocative for the next crisis, which erupted in 1999. In the environment were there is more profit, the danger of cor-ruption is on the lookout. Unless if this is all regulated. As evidenced by the election of Salt Lake City for hosting the Winter Games of 2002, nearly a quarter of the IOC members get more than a million in pay-offs, vacations to Disneyland, trips to the Superbowl in Las Vegas and scholarships for the members’ children. A research by Jennings (2000) conclud-ed that there had been a long lasting legacy of IOC members ignoring allegations of influence peddling. Suggested here is that did not check the allegations because the IOC was the most ‘unaccountable’ organization in the world, and they did not have to check it. So the suggestion is that Salt Lake City was not the first were it happened. When President Sa-maranch apologized for the scandal after the Salt Lake City Games, he denied the ingrained culture of corruption in the

7

1. Context of the Olympic Games

IOC (Jennings, 2000).After the 2002 Games, the IOC had to act. Primarily by the possible loss of commercial support. With pressure from sponsors and also from the US Congress. After all, ten mem-bers were removed from the IOC; this also resulted in a major change of the Olympic Charter. These include for example: age limits, expansion of membership categories (IFs, NOCs and athletes) and the launching of an Ethics commission.

Analyzing the IOC nowadays becomes clear that the IOC is a mixture of the United Nations and the FIFA. What become clear is that the IOC is a unique body with unique values and norms. Where it all started in the 19th century with a small organization it is now one of the most known and powerful non-governmental bodies of the world, which still acts like a non-democratic closed system. This grown had an enormous impact on all the aspect of the Olympic Games. Think about the organizational philosophy of the Games, the ideals of the Movement but also the structure in the sports world. This all becomes visible in the next paragraph, in which the devel-opment of the Olympic Summer Games will be explained in detail.

1.3 The cycles of the GamesNext to these core characteristics of the Olympic Games, which are mentioned in the beginning, the Games did change since 1896. The Games as an event are no autonomous, im-mutable and neutral event. It is always a reflection of the global political, economic and social situation. According to different researches, the Olympic Games can be classified in cycles of about 20 years (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008; XML Architects, 2012; Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). The various studies have some differences in the cy-cles; this research will use all of them to design an alternative typology in six cycles, see also Figure 1.

I. Difficult beginnings (1896-1912)The launch of the modern Olympic Games in 1896 in Athens was very successful, but afterwards it was hard to continue independent. Through the reduced visibility, the Games suf-fered from the link with the universal exhibitions. The great

success of the Stockholm Games of 1912 (with participants from five continents) was preservation to survive World War I. In 1916, the Games were scheduled to Berlin, but were can-celled, due to the war.

II. The interwar competition (1920-1936)After World War I, peaceful means like the League of Na-tions were created. The Olympics gave the opportunity to transform conflicts to a peaceful battle on a playing field with individuals representing their country. This was also the time were many of the symbols, like the athletes’ oath, the medal ceremony, the five interlocking rings and the Olympic flame were invented. This was also the time were the Olympics gain more importance then other multi-sport events. After the ‘Nazi-Games’ of 1936, World War II prevented the taking place of the 1940 (scheduled to Tokyo and later Helsinki) and 1944 (symbolically scheduled to London) Olympics.

III. No more War (1948-1964)The period after World War II can be typified as the interna-tionalization of the Games by spreading a peaceful competi-tion. The Games were for the first time held outside Europe in 1956 in Melbourne, this continued with Tokyo in 1964. The European editions were marked by post-war feelings. The 1948 Games of London were symbolic for the victory, the 1960 (Rome), 1972 (Munich) (and also the 1964 Tokyo) Games for the rebuilding after the War. The Rome Olympics were the first in which an urban renewal strategy emerged. This was also the time were the Cold War emerged and were the East-West contrast were good visible during the Games (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). This period was also the period of decolonization and the growth of the Games; through the Cold War, the Games became more political.

IV. The nadir (1968-1980)The 1968 Mexico Games were a mark of darker period of time. In front of the IOC-members, 300 protesting students were shot to go on with the Games. Also Munich 1972; ac-centuating the political problems by the hostage of the Is-raeli team, the financial debacle of the Montreal Games of 1976 and the 1980 & 1984 boycotts from the United States

8

Part I: Context

and nearly half of the countries in 1980 during the Games of Moscow and the Sovjet-countries during the 1984 Games in Los Angeles caused an unpleasant taste. It was also the time where the first steps to the future were made with improved technological sophistication related to the Games for broad-casting. Due to the different problems, there were many ex-perts who state that the 1980 Games were the last Olympics. It looks like it was the end (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013).

V. The commercial Games/Olympics 2.0 (1984-2000)But, due to the commercial approach of Los Angeles with complete different Games was there again a future. The 1984

Games were the turning point. The Games had to be reinvent-ed, the television became more important, and the capitalism was surviving the Cold War as best. The commercialization came up and with all this developments, the competition opened up the Games to professional athletes. For the 1984 Games, there was only one real candidate city, the other candi-date, Teheran, was not a real option in front of the ayatollahs, so a change was needed. This change happened with the 1984 Games. After a referendum blocked public funding, a group of entrepreneurs developed a new business model based of revenues from television and advertising. Important for the spatial impact, Los Angeles hosted the Games without major urban developments, this reflected in the lower costs, which was welcome because of the high costs of Munich and Mon-

Figure 1: cycles of the Olympics Summer Games. (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld, sources: IOC & Google for pictures)Time

The di�cult beginnings(1896-1912)

I II III IV V VIThe interwar competition

(1920-1936)No more war(1948-1964)

The nadir(1968-1980)

The commercial Games/Olympics 2.0(1984-2004)

The world expansion(2008-?)

1920 1948 19681896 1984 2008

9

1. Context of the Olympic Games

treal. This continued with The Olympic Partnership (TOP) in 1985 and reached its peak with the 1996 Atlanta Games. During this celebration of 100 year Olympic Games of At-lanta, home of the Headquarter of Coca Cola, was preferred above Athens, the source of the Games. Next to that, the 1992 Barcelona Games were the first edition free of boycotts in 20 years and according to the urban transformation of Barcelo-na it is still a well-known example, something what is called nowadays ‘The Barcelona Model’. It were also the first Games were South Africa was allowed to participate after the apart-heid regime and were Germany participated as a single team. Barcelona paved the way with a good logistical organization of a gigantic event that can grow bigger. Atlanta 1996 was a classic example of an underestimation of the logistical orga-

nization. Without government involvement there were some major problems in transportation, information technology and security. The 2000 Sydney and 2004 Athens Games ben-efited from governmental support and there were no major problems or incidents.

VI. The world expansion (2004-?With the 2004 Athens Games, the Olympics were back on the old nest, after that they could spread their wings. Afterwards are the Athens Games not seen as the best Games. There were problems with the building procedures, the big internation-al sponsors did not supported Athens and the IOC used its power to force some decisions. With Beijing in 2008 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016, the Olympics discovered some new worlds. This is also visible in the upcoming Winter Olym-pics in Sochi (2014) and Pyeongchang (2018). In this era, the TOP-program is a perfect vehicle for opening new econo-mies for the 12 big sponsors of the IOC. This along with the enormous IOC standards for infrastructure investments and jurisdictional freedom it is hard to integrate this with demo-cratic countries. The twenty year-cycle becomes visible in this typology. The now arise question is when the current cycle will end, and how long this model of a closed governance system without a real democratic notion is viable for the long-term. Exception in this era is London 2012, well-organized Games in a dem-ocratic country. One of the unique selling points of London was the redevelopment of one of the poorest parts of London with a big sustainability and legacy mark, which is after the London Olympics incorporated in the IOC standards. Lon-don is in this a good first step in which the environmental and legacy issues are combined in one comprehensive long-term vision (Interview Herbert Wolff & Thysia Pater, 2013). The question is now, would Rio de Janeiro be a step forward on this, or will it be a big step back?

1.4 ConclusionAs Laughlin (1991) pointed out in his model of organization change is that an ideal organization is in equilibrium, that the subsystems within the organization and the design ac-cording to the surroundings are in some dynamic balance.

Time

The di�cult beginnings(1896-1912)

I II III IV V VIThe interwar competition

(1920-1936)No more war(1948-1964)

The nadir(1968-1980)

The commercial Games/Olympics 2.0(1984-2004)

The world expansion(2008-?)

1920 1948 19681896 1984 2008

10

Part I: Context

He also suggests that an organization only will change when it is disturbed. This will not happen if organizations con-tinually adapt to minor changes in the environment. That the Olympic Movement is not in equilibrium is something which became clear after the after the crises at the end of the 20th century. During the 1980s crisis, the IOC was no longer the amateur idealistic body of Olympism but became a high-class profit-able organization in which the television and sponsor reve-nue became a major driver. An important aspect here is the picture to the outside world, stay worldwide known as the idealistic organization. After that, the second crisis arose in 1999. After a huge cor-ruption scandal in the run for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games and as a result the relieve of ten IOC members and some major changes in the Olympic Charter, the IOC was able to reach calmer water.In solving the problems, the IOC has only done by symptoms control. The source of the 1980s crisis of continues growing Games and thereby continues growing costs stayed. Also the 1999 crisis of corruption is never really solved. The charac-teristics of the non-democratic closed system with secret bal-lots and the lack of accountability of the IOC members are still present. Here become visible that there is no interaction between the different levels of the system; the regime and niche participants working not enough together to cope with the complex worldwide society; and since the end of the 19th century no move towards a more democratic decision-mak-ing model is made. The last try to catch up with these issues is the legacy program. By stating the importance of positive legacy, the IOC tries to avoid protests and complaints about the still rising costs. But this is still a measure of symptom control. Not lowering the costs to a human scale, but try to leave behind a positive legacy of infrastructure investments and urban regeneration is the strategy.With the legacy program, the costs are not lowered, the impact in host cities does not become smaller and local-ly adjusted and the IOC stays an ‘old gentlemen’s club’ in a non-democratic closed and mostly secret system. “The IOC remains a club based on the eighteenth-century aristocratic notions of membership associated with a gentlemen’s club”

(Horne & Whannel, 2012: 28). The Executive Board in which members are not democratically chosen makes most deci-sions. The host city is chosen by a secret ballot, which is to-tally not transparent, here the IOC has enormous power over cities and countries that aspire to host the Olympics (XML Architects, 2012). This reflects that short-term revenues pre-fer above the long-term trends of the world. Relevant trends that the Games should take into account are climate change (finiteness of fossil fuels, sea-level rise and rising energy pric-es), technology and digitalizing developments (public view-ing, temporary venues, (social) media) and the worldwide crisis (financial, relational in point of view of market, society and government, values and lifestyle). The solution in my opinion is a transition to a democratic, transparent, flexible and sustainable business model, which is based on humanity. Thereby the Olympic Games can transform to a sustainable and human scale event in which the legacy of the spatial im-pact (70% of the investments) got a central place and can cope with the local needs. It is necessary for the Olympic Movement to take the lead in this transformation. To make a sustainable Olympic Games possible, it is important to be sustainable in the requirements and vision in for example the spatial, societal, commercial and financial aspect. This all is where this research is going about.

11

2. The Research

2. The ResearchThe worldwide society is changing through decades towards a society in which the environment and sustainable aspect of our actions gets more attention. Through experiments are sectors changing and according to the ideals of Olympism should the Olympic Movement be an experi-ment in this worldwide transition. This is not the case nowadays. For example, the sustainable ambitions of the London 2012 Olympics came from the local organizing committee without support of the IOC. After the Games, the IOC has taken over this, but this reflects once again there is no reflexive component during the process; this is already written down in chapter 1. This reflects the ongoing development of the Olympic Games as an event, but also lack of devel-opment of the IOC by their outdated requirements.

2.1 Cause of the research

These trends are for example: the worldwide climate change, the developments in technology and digitalization and the current worldwide crises. The worldwide climate change is linked with the developments of energy prices, shale gas, re-newable sources and the finiteness of fossil fuels. The devel-opments of technology and digitalization, for example, are visible in the use of social media: always and everywhere on-line, 3D television and the smartphone density worldwide. The current crisis reflects the ongoing development from a banking crisis, towards financial crisis and towards a system crisis (Rotmans, 2012). But what remains is the IOC: founded in 1896, since then hardly changed. Nowadays a group of 105 members decide about the major issues of the Olympic Movement. This group decides within the walls of the IOC by secret ballots. They try to keep the amateur view to the outside world, but they are mainly driven by commercialization. This causes problems: the institutional part of the committee and the cultures and values of the worldwide society, versus the remained unilateral focus on organizing the Games with-out the broader perspective of the urban renewal program. The missing link between the current and a sustainable ty-pology is the democracy of the current discourse. The tele-vision broadcasting rights keep rising and the TOP program still brings more money in every four year. The worldwide

interest becomes more important, but the IOC does not fa-cilitate on a sustainable way. This results in an untenable situation as regards the spatial component in the long-term. The spatial component consists of the legacy and investments in infrastructure. Stadiums are built with a capacity of 80.000 people and only used for five weeks, public transport systems are designed to trans-port people with a peak capacity of 60.000 people per hour, something the majority of cities do not need after the Games. If these requirements of the IOC stay at this level or may-be even rise f1urther, this will have a disastrous effect on the Olympic Movement in the long-term.

2.2 Problem statementThe above described context leads to a lack of transitional change in the context of the Olympic Games and the Olym-pic Movement. The Olympic Movement misses the current trend of sustainable development; a more open governance system will provide opportunities to make the transition eas-ier. This will lead to the following problem statement: The worldwide society is showing signs of a sustainable transition, the Olympic Movement does not follow this transition and lacks the notion of long-term vision.With this problem in mind, it is worth thinking about mak-ing the Olympic Games sustainable and tenable for the long-1 five weeks consist of three weeks Olympic Games and two weeks Para-limpic Games.

12

Part I: Context

Context:development OG1896-2012

Theory:- Complexity (De Roo)- Transitions (Rotmans)

Current developmentstowards sustainable a transition

Institutional

Spatial

- IOC- Bidproces- Commercial- Democratic

- Local- Creative- Circulair- Persevering

Conclusions:- Conclusions- Recommendations- Re�ection

Problemstatement:The ongoing growth of the spatial impact of the OG will in the long-term lead to the end of the OM

Analysis: Olympic Games 3.0:- Case London 2012- Expiration date- Future OM

Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V

term future. Chapter 1 made it clear that the Olympic Games develop along the society, but that the governance structure of the IOC and the Olympic Movement remains. This re-flects in the lack in interest of the urban renewal goals in the whole process (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Since the 1960s, this is an important aspect of bidding and hosting the Olympics, but the requirements are not adjusted substantially to this reality. This can eventually lead to the end of the Olympics because difference in discourse in the worldwide society and the discourse within the Olympic Movement. Thus a change of paradigm is needed. To achieve this, the Olympic Move-ment should become a more open Olympic Movement in which the sustainability is one of the key characteristics to take the role in society. Besides that, there are some devel-opments expected for the near future, which can radically change the Games. If we think about the current business model of television rights, and the developments of social media, a radical change is not impossible. A structural transi-tion of the Olympic Movement is needed to make the Games sustainable and tenable in the long-term. In this change of paradigm, the Olympic Movement, and especially the IOC is the key to this change. If the IOC changes the requirements in a more sustainable way, the Games will presumably follow according to these requirements.

2.3 Research questionAs already mentioned in chapter one, the Olympic Games are a constantly changing phenomenon in which approxi-mately every 20 years a new cycle starts. According to this prognosis, somewhere around 2024 the new cycle will start. As this is in 10 years, it is impossible to predict in which di-rection the Games will evolve. Although, the forecast is that the sustainability aspect is getting more important. This to-gether result in the following research question:

Can the transition theory be an opportunity for a sustainable long-term urban development of the host city?

This question can be separated in some sub questions:• To what extent are the Olympic Games an opportunity

to achieve a spatial development?

• Is a change such as the transition theory desirable?• Can the transition theory support the adjustments of

the Olympic Movement to become fundamentally more sustainable?

• should a change be desirable for the stakeholders?• Allows the IOC more focus on the long-term urban de-

velopments?• Could the Olympic Movement contribute to a sustain-

able society?• Is the transition started with the London Olympics? • What will be the result if nothing changes?

Some remarks on the research question are:• 1) The term ‘urban’ refers to the built environment in

which the Olympic Summer Games take place every four-year.

• 2) The term ‘transition’ refers to a structural change of society or culture towards a society or culture in which sustainability gets an important position. The theory be-hind this term comes from Jan Rotmans et al (2001) and will be elaborated in chapter 3.

• 3) The term sustainable refers to the three-dimensional nature of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental (Furrer, 2002). In here, there is a big dif-ference in sustainability from the perspective of the daily activities and the sustainability of mega-events. The IOC tries to catch the daily part in the ‘Sport and Environment program’, but misses the mega-event part. In this context, what is meant with sustainability can as best be translated from the German ‘nachhaltigkeit’. Sustainable means more than just the three di-mensions. The long-term legacy is even more import-ant. With the enormous investments in infrastructure (transport, stadia and village), it is possible to do every-thing on a sustainable way with as less as possible raw materials, but if it is not used after five weeks, it’s really unsustainable in the long-term. So sustainability in this is focused on achieving a positive legacy, with no ‘white elephants’2 (Cashman, 2002).

2 White elephants is a common used term for venues which have no destiny after

13

2. The Research

• 4) The long-term refers to the gradual transition, which takes 30-40 years to achieve and come in a new dynamic equilibrium.

2.4 HypothesisThe hypothesis is that the worldwide society will make further a transitional change and that the Olympic Games should achieve a transitional change to be an opportunity for the sustainable long-term development for the host city and also for their own existence. This because it is possible to make the Olympic Games more fundamentally sustain-able for the long-term. The Olympics should, just like every other business, care about the surroundings and take their social responsibility. It is not impossible to become more sustainable in the context of a technical rationale, top-down and blueprint planning model, but with a communicative rationale which is more open, democratic and interactive, there are more opportunities. A transitional change can be an opportunity to become a more fundamental sustainable and open Olympic system. With this transitional change it is possible to start the change and to achieve a more funda-mentally sustainable Olympic Games, which are no longer,

an events. Think about the infrastructure connection between Athens city and the Olympic area and the stadiums of the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa.

ter 1). This will continue by the problem statement and meth-odological underpinnings. Part II will consist of two chapters of theory, starting with the general and planning theories of complexity (i.e. Gert de Roo) and transitions (i.e. Jan Rot-mans) followed by an Olympic theory chapter (chapter 3 and 4). Part III will consist of the analysis of the problem. The current developments towards a sustainable transition, specified in a institutional and spatial aspect (chapter 6). In Part IV, the new era of Olympism will be reached by the case of London 2012 and afterwards, a sketch what can happen if nothing changes together with the sketch of the future of the Olympic Movement. This research will finish with Part V, with the conclusions, recommendations and the reflection. This is all schematically displayed in figure 2.

2.5 MethodsThe used research methodology will be described in this paragraph; this will give a justification of the applied tech-niques and approach.

Research methodologyThe goal for this research is to gain knowledge and present a suitable alternative for the way in which the Olympic Games are used by cities, and which role the IOC should take to take

Context:development OG1896-2012

Theory:- Complexity (De Roo)- Transitions (Rotmans)

Current developmentstowards sustainable a transition

Institutional

Spatial

- IOC- Bidproces- Commercial- Democratic

- Local- Creative- Circulair- Persevering

Conclusions:- Conclusions- Recommendations- Re�ection

Problemstatement:The ongoing growth of the spatial impact of the OG will in the long-term lead to the end of the OM

Analysis: Olympic Games 3.0:- Case London 2012- Expiration date- Future OM

Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V

Figure 2: Conceptual model (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld)

an end, but which are a means by which the hosting urban area can develop itself for the long-term future.

Conceptual modelIn order to test this hypothesis, this research is divided in five parts. Part I starts with analyzing the context of the Olym-pic Games and the Olympic system in which they developed since the foundation of the modern Olympics in 1896 (chap-

the responsibility of the impact of the Games in urban areas.In this research, various cases will be used, but one partic-ular case will be described in depth, the Games of London 2012. The reason behind this is the relevance of London of trying to host the Olympics on a more sustainable way. In this attempt, London was not perfect, but it was a good start to achieve the transition. Other cases will be used as exam-ples, in which certain aspects are enlightening the research.

14

Part I: Context

Here, also my knowledge from other Olympics, my bache-lor thesis with the case of Barcelona 1992 and my addition-al fieldtrip to Barcelona will be of value. Besides that, desk study from experiences and researches about other Olympics will be used. London 2012 is in this case exceptional because London was the first one to put legacy and sustainability in ‘the heart of the bid’; and was thereby enlightening how the Games can be a means to develop a part of the city. So, all previous Olympics do not fit in this research. Rio de Janei-ro, the host city for the 2016 Olympics should be interesting to study, but Rio is also the host of the FIFA World Cup in 2014 and they mainly focusing on 2014 now. So there is not that much ex-ante information about the 2016 edition, and thereby, the legacy plans are vague, and various authors have their doubts in the achievements of Rio. Thus, this all togeth-er makes Rio not a case that is suitable for this research. The plans for Tokyo are not in a phase to be useful because of the preparation-time towards the Games. To cope with the com-plexity of the Olympic system and the amount of stakehold-ers and different methods are necessary (O’Leary, 2010). She suggests to use (depth) interviews, observations and docu-mentation analyses. The different perspectives of research-ers from different countries are interesting in this process with an open end. Nobody knows which city will host the 2024 Games or further and nobody can predict the future of the Olympic system. It is an open and transition system which evolves through time. Therefore, the perceptions of the different stakeholders with different backgrounds are really important. Qualitative research, with subjective and various perspectives gives meaning to rationality (O’Leary, 2010). This research tries to compare these perspectives into a vision for the future of the Olympics, in which different continents can host the Games and which is flexible and ro-bust enough in creating a sustainable long-term legacy. To gain additional knowledge I participated in the University of East London ‘Olympic Legacy Conference’, a three-day con-ference with around 100 international participants from all over the world. Here it was possible to gain information from international scholars specialized on legacy research on the Olympic Games. During this conference I made notes and photographs from presentations and other talks. After the

presentations I talked with a lot of researchers about there research in a short interview setting. During this conference we also made a trip through the Olympic Park.

Literature studyIn order to gain knowledge from different perspectives, this research consists mostly of literature study. This literature varies from books from academic researchers; internation-al journals of sport, history, organizational studies, policies, future studies, urban development, environmental develop-ment, governance and so on. Besides this academic litera-ture does this research also makes use of other documents: there are various relevant documents from the IOC or relat-ed bodies, there are relevant reports of different host cities and also from consultant companies in specific niches of this research. The UEL Olympic Legacy Conference was helpful here because of meet some researchers, listening to their ex-periences and latest researches and results. It also helped to gain additional literature.

InterviewsBeside the literature study, there were also some interviews. During the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference there were dif-ferent talks, not in real in-depth interview setting. But, there were some other interviews:• Jurryt van de Vooren: sports historian, specialized on

the history of the Olympic Games.• Herbert Wolff: during the London 2012 Olympics sus-

tainability coordinator at LOCOG, now Manager Olym-pic knowledge at NOC*NSF

• Thysia Pater: during the London 2012 Olympics deputy depot manager at LOCOG, now sport marketing officer at University of Birmingham.

• Willem de Boer: research sport economics at Hoges-chool Arnhem Nijmegen and researcher for community sport event evaluation (WESP).

With these interviews it was possible get in-depth knowledge and opinions from professionals.

15

2. The Research

2.6 RelevanceThis paragraph will discuss the relevance of the research, from a scientific perspective and a social perspective. The scientific relevance will reflect the methodological and tech-nological perspective and will show the way it may contrib-ute to further development of theories. The social relevance will focus on the importance for the Olympic Movement and the forecasted development they might anticipate on.

Scientific relevanceAn important aspect is defining the concept of sustainability. Sustainability is a fuzzy concept; there is no agreement about what is sustainable and what is not (De Roo & Porter, 2007). To implement the notion of sustainability it is recommended to define the concept of sustainability in general and for the Olympic context and make it operational to agree on what is sustainable in respect to the Olympics. Learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning are important aspects in here because of the relative new theoretical approaches. Transition theory uses these aspects and this research will test the theory on the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. This research tries to make it applicable for other events in which a sus-tainable transition can be made. It will thereby also reflect on the theory.From the science field of transition theory this research tries to contribute in the implication possibilities of so-called ‘ex-periments’. The transition theory is a relatively new theory in which new examples are welcome. This research can prob-ably help in making the theory applicable for other, most-ly smaller, events in which the sustainable transition can be made.

Social relevanceThe social relevance of this research would be that it could contribute to unravel the complexity of large-scale events, which are planned 7-9 years in advance. These are commonly persistent problems for a society because they don’t happen regularly and there is no single solution for it. These complex problems are deeply rooted in structure of the society; the society is here the source of the problem, because the society changes. Managing these problems is difficult because there

are various actors with different interests involved. Accord-ing to the SER (Dutch Social Economic Council, 2001) and VROM (Dutch Ministry of Housing, Planning and Environ-ment)(2001) not all these problems can be fixed with cur-rent policies alone. As stated by Rotmans & Loorbach (2010) persistent problems are related to systemic failures. These failures crawl gradually into the societal system in which the market or policies are not able to fix it. A mechanism as the Olympic Games can help to unravel these problems and make achievements in commonly interrelated and multi-dis-ciplinary persistent problems in a society.

2.7 StructureThe chapters of this research are subdivided in five parts. Their mutual relation will be explained below and by figure 2. In part I, the introduction will contain the context of the Olympic Movement as niche with the Games as an exper-iment and IOC be outlined (chapter 1) and the design of the research will be presented (chapter 2). Thereafter, part II, Transition Management will continue and the theoretical framework of the transition theory is explained (chapter 3). The complex perspective and the system theory will further explain this. Chapter 4 will continue with the more Olympic specific theory of the Olympic governance and with a defini-tion of sustainable Olympic Games. Part III, the sustainable transition will start with a short analysis of the current soci-ety and how the world is changing (chapter 5). This will con-tinue with a design of a sustainable transition of the institu-tional and spatial part of the Olympic Movement (chapter 6). Part IV will combine all this in a view of the Olympic Games 3.0. Here, the theoretical aspect of part II and the practical aspect of part III come together. This will start with a case study of the London 2012 Games (chapter 7) and will further continue a suggestion of the discourse in which the future of the Olympic Movement can be safeguarded (chapter 8). This research will end with part V, the conclusions, recommen-dations and will contain a reflection on the whole process (chapter 9).

Part II: Theory

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

19

3. Transition Management

3. Transition ManagementIn the past, the society was assumed to understand easy: indicators measured the success of cer-tain policies. Nowadays, everything is much more complex and the amount of indicators does not always give the right picture of the status (Rotmans, 2012; Harvey, 1989). In a straightfor-ward, technical and functional world, it would be helpful to have more indicators, but in a com-plex society as it is today, that will not help, so another theory have to come up. To understand the whole picture of the changing worldwide society and the theory behind it, this chapter will deconstruct the different aspects of the society to become open minded and gives the opportu-nity to see everything in a different way.

3.1 IntroductionSince the 1960s and 1970s with the emerging report from the ‘Club of Rome’ (1972) and the Brundtland Report (1987), the world started to care about the surroundings, the nature around us, so the environment. An important aspect of these initiatives is the humanity and health of the world, this is re-flected for example by the Word Wildlife Fund’s slogan: ‘Help to save the world’s wildlife’ of those days. This puts forward the position of humans in the development of the world. According to Hughes (2005) are there four major themes in which global environmental history can be divided: popu-lation growth (birth of 6 billionth living human in October 1999, and still growing, that will be a problem to feed ev-erybody); local vs. global determination of policy (who is in charge to improve the livability? Local of global policies?); threats of biodiversity (the decreasing biodiversity for centu-ries); and the supply of and demand for energy and materi-als (the enormous and continues growth of energy and ma-terials since the industrial revolution). Thus, the discourse on environmental policies is changing and becoming more important over time (Dryzek, 2005). Since the 1970s, these analyses are seen as problem for the future and since then, it is slowly internalized in policies and worldwide discussions. Now becomes visible that we are on a tipping point in which the world tilts towards a more open type of society (Rot-mans, 2012). This is endorsed by the transition theory (3.3) and there are several worldwide examples which shows we are on that tipping point.

An example of the changing worldview from a closed towards an open system is the water policy. In the 1970s, higher dikes were the only possible option for achieving the needed safety for the people. Gradually, this changed towards a more open system like it is now. No longer just dikes, but also working in cooperation with the water and give it more room where possible or necessary (Huitema & Meijerink, 2010) and adapt to changing conditions by resilience (i.e. Klein et al, 2003; Pahl-Wostl, 2007). These transitions happen worldwide, on different scales, speed and results, in China (te Boekhorst et al., 2010); Mexico (Wilder, 2010); United States (Meier & Toole, 2001) and various European countries (Jordan et al., 2009). Hereby the awareness of adaptation and mitigation is growing in order to reduce the impact of climate change on out daily lives (Biesbroek et al., 2009). In water management, the tipping point is already passed, which is also a character-istic of the transition theory; the change got different speeds.

Also in urban planning, the procedures and restrictions change towards a more open system. From closed, top-down long-term visions and local plans it develops towards coop-erative methods with civic involvement. Important aspects for this change are the social involvement of the people to improve their conditions; but also in the process of account-ability of the spatial conditions of neighborhoods and there-by create a better environment (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011). In other words, the humanity and the long-term sustainabil-ity are important here. This idea is called ‘self-organization’

20

Part II: Theory

is thereby called as a characteristic of a complex society. This becomes visible with cases in The Netherlands (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011); the United States (Innes & Booher, 2000); Brazil (Cymbalista & Nakano, 2005); and China (Finger-huth, 2004). For the practical implementation of an example, see the Global Village Network (GEN, n.y.).

The last example is the energy transition, from which the complexity became clear. This is a transition from a top-down centralized energy supply system based of big com-panies towards a bottom-up, local organized energy supply system in which households produce their own energy. In the old system, the big companies like RWE, Vattenfall and Essent got the power to decide which energy is used. It ap-pears here that the energy they say they sell is not always the energy they sell (NOS, 2013). The supply system is based on big coal or gas power plants, which produce enormous Megawatts (MW) of energy of mostly non-renewable sourc-es. The company is the producer; the citizen is the consumer. In the new system, the consumer is also producer, and the producer is also the distributor. If you produce more ener-gy than needed, you can sell it to the market and someone else can use it. This is based on sharing and local produc-ing goods without being dependent of big multinationals. A typical example of this energy transition is ‘Texel Energie’, a cooperation that produces and sells energy on the island of Texel, Netherlands. This is a local founded initiative in which renewable energy is produced and distributed around the is-land (Texel Energie, n.y.). An important paradigm shift is the social acceptance of this change (Wüstenhagen et al, 2007). In Germany it is called ‘Energiewende’, and it is a change that is happening at many places around the world. Here the complexity of the process is somewhat similar to the exper-iment of the Olympic Games: an old system that still works, some problems are arising and an initially small group who tries to change the complete system by 180 degrees. The old power have to change or otherwise lose its position, local parties take their matters into their own hands and the sys-tem changes completely towards a sustainable system.

On which argument is the current society called a ‘complex

system’? In here, the article of Horst Rittel (1972) is a useful source. He came already in 1972 with the notion of tamed problems and wicked problems. Rittel (1972) gives some ex-amples on how to characterize wicked problems. Wicked problems have no definite formulation; that depends on the state of solution. Every definition of the problems represents a state of a solution, so identifying the problems solves them. There is no correct of false application of the problem and a wicked problem is a symptom of another problem. Import-ant in searching for a solution is that every wicked problem is essentially unique and a one-shot-operation, so there is no trail-and-error (Rittel, 1972: 393). With this in mind, the current problem continues developing the crisis; the symp-tomatic solutions for the Olympic crisis can be called wicked problems. To formulate possible solutions from the perspec-tive of wicked problem, it is useful to set the scope of the Olympic system broader than the Olympic system only. With the relatively new theoretical methods, generic rules can help in exercising some controlIn doing this, it will start below with general sciences, in particular the complex system theory. This paragraph will elaborate on the position of planning and planning theory in the scientific spectrum. This will continue in § 3.3 with the transition theory, which is also broader than just planning theory, but which is good applicable for planning theory and how this is linked to the transition as explained in chapter 1. The fifth paragraph of this chapter is focusing on the gover-nance options on how to achieve a shared responsibility and how to structure the system and how possible solutions help to practice the optional paths. The last paragraph will give a conclusion of this theoretical chapter and will also give an answer to the sub question if a transition desirable is.

3.2 General sciencesGeneral science is the general field of scientific research that is the relation between different disciplines. To start, it is good to explain first what is mentioned by ‘theory’. Theory is ‘an abstract set of general or specific principles to be used as a basis for explaining and acting, with the theory being tested and refined if necessary’ (Allmendinger, 2009: 1). In other words, it is a way of reasoning in which an element

21

3. Transition Management

of prediction or prescription is included and also a guide to action. This varies from a mathematical algorithm of reasoning to a mystery in which an educated guess is impossible (De Roo, 2013). An important distinction in here is between natural and social sciences. Natural sciences are able to exclude the context and test their theories in a stable and fro-zen situation. Social sciences have to deal with the context, because that is an aspect of their environment in which the theories need to be test-ed. So, the society cannot be explained the same way as gravity is explained. Social science is based on several conflicting theories with a fundamental different view on the world, like Marxism and liberalism (Allmendinger, 2009). Or, as Giddens (1984) ex-plained: there will never be universal laws in social sciences because of the empirical testing and validation.

In here general science is the gathering of different scien-tific field in which planning theory has its place, see figure 3. In this figure, the left-wing arrow of technical rationality represents the lineair; object oriented, based on facts, direct causality on which parts of a stable system can be changed. The right-wing arrow communicative rationality represents a lineair, opinion based, remote causality on which the context in a dynamic, unstable and process-oriented systems, this is also called ‘complexity’. The grey arrow upwards represents the non-lineair kind of rationality in which time is incorpo-rated and in which chaos and complexity have their place (De Roo, 2010). At the bottom, the place of planning in the scientific field is visible, just in order to sociology, general

Figure 3: The place of planning concepts in the academic world. (De Roo, 2010).

sciences and philosophy. Rationality in this case is seen as a means to predict and explain a phenomenon. In here it is im-portant to notice that both rational and real are constructed by humans means, this through interpretation and sharing meaning by language (Zuidema, 2013). In this post-posi-tivist perspective, the plurality of the rationality and reality are debatable and depend on the context. When zooming in towards planning theory there is another distinction. Here comes into play the categorization in classes I-IV (Kauffman, 1991; De Roo, 2010), see figure 4, in which complexity plays a major role (Van der Graaf & Hoppe, 1996; Batty, 2005). In here the horizontal arrow is the spectrum of rationality in which the left side is the technical rationality and the right side is the communicative rationality. The technical rational-ity represents a simple, straightforward world in which the planner is a technician. This world is very top-down, stable and functional planned with direct causality, one entity in which there is only one real world with blueprint planning

22

Part II: Theory

Figure 4: System classes (De Roo, 2010).

as typical example. This type of a world is also known as Systems Class I (De Roo, 2010), or the steady-state equilibrium (Kauffman, 1991). The middle of the spec-trum is the bulk of issues, also known as the feedback systems. In here, there are many practical issues in which scenario planning is the typical example. Gert de Roo called this ‘the fuzzy middle’, or the Systems Class II (De Roo, 2010), or oscillation between fixed states (Kauffman, 1991). The right end of the spectrum is theoretical com-municative rationality in which a very complex instable and chaotic world is the case; here the planner is the mediator. This world is bottom-up organized, based on shared responsi-bility, remote causality, and multiple entities and in an in-ter-subjective matter with open and participative networks. Collaborative planning is a typical example in this world, which is also known as Systems Class III (De Roo, 2010), or no predictable patterns or stability (Kauffman, 1991). These three classes are all mentioned without the notion of time; this is an important aspect in planning nowadays. With this in regard to complexity and chaos, there are three assump-tions to keep in mind (De Roo, 2010):1. Open systems evolve through growing complexity in a

movement from order to chaos. A growing degree of complexity. In this chaos of non-lineair systems, a small change at the beginning can lead to a huge difference in the result. Besides that, the causality is declining, the entities become fuzzy and the stability is declining

2. Complex systems emerge at the edge of order and cha-os. Time matters in here. Through the stability and the capacity of change a system can maximize the benefits (Phelan, 1999).

3. New and orderly systems emerge out of these complex systems, at a higher level. When the system is good con-nected with the surrounding environment at a high-er level, it can adapt and transform into a situation in which the system can evolve and survive.

With these three assumptions, the planning theory starts to

move from being to the becoming, or the System Class IV, or capable of producing extended transients (Kauffman, 1991). The being focuses on the here and now and make a choice between top-down (technical) and with more interaction (communicative), becoming focuses on continues change during the process, with the technical or communicative ra-tional in mind. The big difference is the aspect of time, the ongoing discussion and development towards the future. It is no longer a frozen situation, but an evolving development in time, in complexity thinking this is a crucial notion. In here the wicked problems, as presented in § 3.1 apply. Autono-mous processes in which the contextual environment is cru-cial and open to change characterize the Class IV systems; this will be further elaborated in the next paragraphs.

3.3 Complexity theory The complexity theory is also known as a complex system theory; it is an interdisciplinary field of science that studies the nature of complex systems in society, nature, science and technology. In Figure 3, the complexity theory is one of the ‘planning concepts’. Complexity tries to analyze a group of interrelating parts that influence each other, for example a city, a society, or the Olympic Movement. The system the-ory is originated in the 1960s, focusing on general systems theory, also known as the time of blueprint thinking (Young, 1964). System thinking is the link between the complexity

23

3. Transition Management

theory and the specific planning theory. The first well known report based on system thinking was published in 1972 as the ‘Limits to Growth’ report of the Club of Rome (Meadows et al, 1972), based on a global model of system dynamics, describing major interrelating factors on a global scale of environmental stocks an flows. Here, a major characteristic of system thinking comes ahead: the stocks (state variables: state of the system on a certain point of time which changes slowly) and flows (rate variables: processes that relates vari-ous stocks, which change fast)(Forrester, 1968).

Between the 1970s and 1990s, the system theory evolves from a blueprint planning discourse towards complex sys-tem thinking focused on the co-evolutionary development of systems, also known as the development from Class I to-wards Class III systems. Still, it is about the here and now, not about the future and the continuous development. The transition theory can be helpful in the development towards the Class IV systems. This reflects in the adaptive complex systems. They are special because these systems are able to learn from the experience they have got. In other words, ‘they are able to respond to and adjust themselves to changes in their environment’ (Grin et al, 2010: 117). This is a re-flection of the Class IV systems. Some examples of complex adaptive systems are living organisms, business companies and the Olympic Games. Complex adaptive systems have the same shape as one or more subsystems: it is self-similar, the system as a whole and the agents are adaptive. Three unique characteristics of a complex adaptive system (system Class IV) are (Grin et al, 2010; Rotmans, 2012): • Co-evolution: the interaction between several systems,

which influence the dynamics of separate systems irre-versible. It is about a mutual selection of two or more evolving populations, different systems influence the dynamics of individual systems. This irreversible aspect distinguishes the co-evolution from the co-production, in the higher degree of interaction (Kemp et al, 2007). In here, the long-term sustainable creation of a joint problem perception and long-term vision are character-istics that reflect the process-oriented way, and is based on a multi-actor process with different levels and results

in innovative networks and experimental playgrounds (Brugge et al, 2005).

• Emergence: arising new, coherent structures, patterns, and properties in complex systems. This all during the process of self-organization and on macro-scale. It is emergent when a group shows different behavior on a higher scale than the separated individuals on the lower scale.

• Self-organization: the ability of a complex system to adapt upon new conditions without steering from the outside. It refers to the capacity to develop a new struc-ture of the system on the base of the systems internal constitution.

Complex adaptive systems are constantly changing, but not constantly at the same speed. There are periods in which the system is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, that’s when cer-tain advantages to the system can be achieved. For example specific objectives of the systems can then be achieved or con-sistency can be built up. In order to achieve these advantages, the state of dynamic equilibrium can last for a relatively long period of time, for example the industrial city that stays the same for a long period after the industrialization. After the dynamic equilibrium, a period of crisis follows, which is not a problem because it is an opportunity to shake up and reform the system, like the period that a city developed towards a modern city and the industrial building remains redundant. If a complex system is not able to react adequately on these radical changes on the internal and external changes it can eventually die out (Grin et al, 2010), for this evolution, see also Mintzberg (1993) and chapter 4. When this change does happen and it reaches a new dynamic equilibrium it is called a transition, this will be further explained in the next para-graph. According to Loorbach (2010) a transition is based on long-term, complex processes, which tries to achieve a struc-tural change in society. This is all based on interdisciplinary research, part of the complex system theory as researched by De Roo (2010) and Rittel (1972).

One key characteristic is that it is impossible to predict the

24

Part II: Theory

development of a complex adaptive system, but there are some governance options to steer these complex systems (Rotmans, 2012):• Top-down: change is planned from a compelling, cen-

tral adjustment;• Bottom up: change is made spontaneous from a decen-

tralized adjustment;• Hybrid: a mixture of top-down and bottom up in which

the change is emergent. A mix of quasi-planned and spontaneous change.

In general, a combination, specific on particular situations, is the best option to achieve the goals; according to De Roo (2010) is a combination needed. The goals that want to be achieved need to be flexible and adaptive. This all-togeth-er makes that the timing is of the intervention is essential (Rotmans, 2012). See also Rotmans & Loorbach (2010). One aspect of the complexity theory is the transition theory is which levels of governance will be visible; this will be further elaborated in the next paragraph because it is fundamental aspect of the transition because of the different perspectives in more sustainable governance systems.

3.4 Transition theoryTransition theory is rooted in the complex system theory and in principle designed by Jan Rotmans and Derk Loorbach, both professors of the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Ac-cording to Rotmans et al. (2001) the definition of a transition is ‘a gradual process of structural change within a society or culture’ (Rotmans et al., 2001: 2). The conceptual framework of the transition theory consists three concepts, which will be explained later in this paragraph:• The multi-phase concept• The multi-level concept• The multi-pattern concept1

This comes with five characteristics (Rotmans et al., 2001):• Long-term thinking as a basis to shape the society on

the short-term.• Multi-domain thinking, beyond borders with different

actors (multi-actor) and different scales (multi-level).1 The multi-pattern concept will not be further explained because of the irrelevance for this research.

• Focus on learning: learning-by-doing and do-ing-by-learning.

• Besides the system improvement, also try to achieve sys-tem innovation.

• Keep a wide level playing field. Keep many possibilities open.

• Creating social support.The general aim of transition management is not the realiza-tion of the transition; it is about the improvement of the soci-ety, if this is possible within the existing system, it is easier to improve it. Transition management tries to add value to the existing policy and placing it in a more long-term perspec-tive (Rotmans et al., 2001). The aim is to achieve collective benefits and accommodate complexity, this by meaning of an anticipative, adaptive and prescriptive way. Doing it by these characteristics is the only option; the degree of complexity is too high for managing it by control and command (Brugge et al., 2005). For this, see also page 23 for the characteris-tics of Class IV systems. By the idea that the transition needs to result in a more sustainable society, which is a subjective goal, this should be done on an inter-subjective way, by a multi-actor process with a balanced diversity of stakeholders and by integrating systems that come to an agreed reality. This is relevant because of the different perspectives of sus-tainability and the different governance options in planning. Processes through a more open and inter-subjective system are relevant because of the sustainability goals and theory of interaction and co-evolution.

Reason for that is that ‘the transition’ does not exist, a tran-sition can happen through a range of possible development paths in which the direction, scale and speed cannot be con-trolled. By the analyses of Geels & Schot (2007), transitions can be characterized by five major points:1. Transitions are co-evolutional processes. It involves de-

velopment of technological innovations and the use in societal domains. It requires a multiple change in the so-cio-technical system.

2. Transitions are multi-actor processes with interactions between social groups like policymakers, social move-ments and special interest groups.

25

3. Transition Management

3. Transitions are ‘radical’ shifts from one system to another. The term rad-ical is not about the speed of change, but about the scope. It can result in creative destruction of a slow change fashion.

4. Transitions are long-term processes. Some aspects will go quite fast (10 years), but most stages in developing a new socio-technical system will go some more gradual and take more time (20-30 years).

5. Transitions are macroscopic. It anal-yses the phenomenon not on indi-vidual or local scale, but on a scale of organizations (Geels & Schot, 2007).

Time

Indicator(s) for social development Time period

Speed

Size

Figure 5: system dimension of transition. (Rotmans et al., 2001).

Transitions can also be seen from a system point of view. Here there are slow dynamics and quick developments vis-ible and also instability, reverting to relative stability. In this system view, a transition consists of three dimensions; see also Figure 5, Rotmans et al. (2001):• Speed of change;• Size of change;• Period of time of change.

This approach of the concept of transitions comes with so-called ‘stocks’ and ‘flows’ (see page 23). In a successful transi-tion stocks and flows come together in the long-term devel-opments (stocks) and the short-term developments (flows). The speed of these changes varies between domains. Eco-nomic changes happen quicker than ecological or cultural changes. In bringing the different domains together, four linked development lines emerge. These iterative and cyclical lines are the following (Brugge et al., 2005): • Set up of a transition arena: an innovative network;• Developing of a long-term vision, transition pathways

and agendas;• A knowledge-development based steering process with

learning effects;• A way to monitor and evaluated the transition process.

This whole process takes place in the first build transition arena, which works on a distance from the current policy arena, but with converging and diverging movements (Dir-ven et al., 2002).

Transitions are interplays between the people and the sys-tems. The people created the system and at the same time the system limited the actions of people. Transitions can be influenced in some ways by governmental policies, but the direct connection between interventions and the results are not clear. This influence also changes through the different phases of the transition (multi-phase aspect). A transition can only happen if there are developments in different do-mains of society. According to Rotmans it can be described as ‘a set of connected changes, which reinforce each other but take place in several different areas’ (Rotmans et al., 2001: 2). The different areas are, for example: culture, economy, institutions and ecology. To achieve the transition, multiple causality and co-evolution are necessary from independent developments, the multi-level aspect of the theory. This tran-sition management is a philosophy, which comes from the research field of multi-level governance and adaptive man-agement and is merely process oriented.

Multi-phase

26

Part II: Theory

A transition happens through different phases in different stages of the transition. It is a sequence of alternating phases with a mixture of fast and slow dynamics. Many devel-opments can influence the development path heading to the next phase, but it is the crucial devel-opment that is launching the flywheel. The dynam-ics together form a strong non-lineair pattern. An

Stabilization

Acceleration

Take-offPredevelopment

Time

System state

Figure 6: multi-phase model (Rotmans, 2001)

important aspect is the current dominant culture; this fre-quently tries to retard the transition. This because of keeping the power they have (Avelino & Rotmans, 2011). In the concept as it is presented by Rotmans et al. (2001), four different phases can be distinguished: the predevelop-ment phase, the take-off phase, the acceleration phase and the stabilization phase, see Figure 6.

In the ideal situation, it is a manifestation of alternating phases, which results in the s-curve. But there are also other possibilities, for example a lock-in situation where the path dependency increases (Garud & Karnøe, 2001). Through a great uncertainty and complexity, the predictability range is small, but by a path dependency an indication of the future transition paths is possible (Grin et al. 2010).

The predevelopment phase: a dynamic state of equilibrium in which the status quo changes in the background, but this is invisible. It is all about searching, learning and experi-menting. This is something, which makes the predevelop-ment tough and long; it can take a lot of time till it really takes-off.The take-off phase: the actual point of ignition, after which the process of structural change picks up momentum. This phase focuses on selecting and facilitating experiments. The time of boundless experimenting is over and the time to se-

lect and facilitate a certain number of experiments has start-ed. This is a chaotic phase in which the government doesn’t need to organize it by itself, but facilitate others to organize it (Rotmans, 2012).

The acceleration phase: a structural change becomes visible. This is the phase in which it becomes clear which experi-ments are mature enough to get up scaled to the regime level. This results in a wider application. Here the current power of the existing dominant actors becomes a barrier. This needs to be erased.

The stabilization phase: where the new dynamic state of equilibrium is achieved. This phase focuses on anchoring and embedding of the changes; changes in routines, laws, rules, structures and patterns. This is important because there is a change on recoil.The indicators, which mark the different phases, are missing in the theory of this multi-phase model (Rotmans & Loor-bach, 2010).

Multi-levelIn the social organization of transitions, there are different levels of aggregation. There are three levels: micro-level, me-so-level and macro-level. This is based on the classification

27

3. Transition Management

of socio-technical systems by Rip & Kemp (1998) with nich-es, regimes and landscapes. The more society-based variant is developed by Rotmans & Loorbach (2010).

The higher the scale of the system is, the slower the dynam-ics are between the actors, structures and working practices and the more aggregated the relationships and components are. For a successful change it is indispensable that the differ-ent dynamics come together. All different components shall mesh together to succeed (Grin et al. 2010).

The roots of the multi-level perspective are from social the-ory (Giddens, 1984) and history (Braudel, 1958), thus the achievement of structural change is not totally new (Grin et al. 2010). The three scale levels used in the transition theory are functional used. Not only geographical, but they also give a representation of the relationships between the scale levels

MACRO-LEVEL- autonomous developments- global trends

MESO-LEVEL- regime- rules, laws, policy

MICRO-LEVEL- practices- expiriments, projects

Figure 7: The multi-level concept (Rotmans, 2012: 243. Based on Geels, 2002).

with their own structure, culture and practices. See Figure 7.

The micro-level: This is the so-called ‘niche experiment’ in which short-term developments loom quickly and disappear with the same speed. These are new initiatives, outside the current structures.

The meso-level: This is the so-called ‘regime’ with dominant structures, cultures and practices, which are shared by the main actors. There is much protest against changes, because of the current power and position of the main actors. They will probably lose their position because of the changes.

The macro-level: This is the so-called ‘landscape’ where autonomous and slow trends take place. This is the level of global trends like globalization, climate change, geo-politics and individualization in transnational actors like the UN and

28

Part II: Theory

IMF and global agreements like the Kyoto-protocol. These are long-term, global and exogenous trends where no single actor can have a substantial influence.

Important is that a transition can have its origin in the micro level, but also in the macro level. For example, if the world-view would change about empty stadiums and replacing the poor after the Rio Olympics, it could help to change the IOC in their policies of selecting host cities. This pressure can come from certain UN organizations and thereby from the macro-level. Another example are the ambitions of London on sustainability and legacy are now used in the selection for future bidding procedures; so thereby a change from the mi-cro-level.

3.5 Governance of transitionsthis paragraph starts with an explanation of the general term ‘governance’ and follows with the explanation of the gover-nance of transitions. GovernanceThe research field of governance studies is a field in which a lot of different definitions are used. The term governance is used by a lot of academics as ‘sustainable governance’ (ES-FESD, 2000), ‘global environmental governance’ (Speth & Haas, 2006) and is often confused with the terms ‘sustain-able’ and ‘development’ (Jordan, 2008). Further on in his article, Jordan (2008) gives a clear definition of the term ‘governance’. He starts with the notion that governance is something else than ‘governing’. ‘Governing’ is something that refers to social activities as a “purposeful effort to guide, steer, control, or manage societies” (Kooiman, 1993:2). ‘Gov-ernance in this respect are “the patterns that emerge from the governing activities of social, political and administrative ac-tors” (Kooiman, 1993:2). It is not the same as government: a government centers the institutions and actions of the state. Governance also allows non-state actors in the process; gov-ernance is more encompassing in this respect. Governance is a common-used term, which represents the change of form and role of the state in contemporary industrialized coun-tries (Jordan, 2008). The degree of control of the government

is the main difference. This control is less in governance ap-proaches; this is similar as thinking in the limited predict-ability and following complexity. Lemos & Agrawal (2006) add the notion of governance on different levels; this is in line with patterns of De Haan & Rotmans (2011). Where governance strategies based on state-, market- and civil soci-ety-based actors varied in more top-down and more-bottom up approaches. The more hybrid approaches are practiced now: they are not based on the leading power of one actor, but more based on shared responsibility (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006). An important aspect of this function and structure of governance is plurality. Plurality is not exclusively an aspect of governance. Plurality has to deal with diversity and dif-ferences, in which three different meanings are important in this respect (Zuidema, 2013):• The philosophical point: there is more than one world,

what we perceive as ‘true’ or ‘real’ is based on our point of view.

• The sociological point: referred to the condition of so-cial fragmentation and diversity, is related to the philo-sophical one, in how we perceive reality.

• The political point: based of the spread of power through different levels of organizations, a system in which many parties/organizations have access to power.

A plural governance landscape has to deal with the three different points of view. This because a societal changes, for example a more circular based economy has its influence on the social and political plurality.

Transitional governanceTransition theory and governance approaches are linked to each other the open character of transitions. Through the interaction between different levels, a hybrid form of gov-ernance is useful in achieving the transition. The transition management works according to a cycle, which consists four phases, see also figure 8 (Rotmans, 2003; Olshoorn & Wiec-zorek, 2006):1. Strategic: structuring the problem in questions and de-

sign a transition arena;2. Tactical: developing a transition agenda, a vision of the

sustainable development and deduce the transition paths

29

3. Transition Management

which are necessary;3. Operational: design and work-out transition experi-

ments and mobilize the relating transition networks;4. Reflexive: monitor, evaluate and learn lessons of the ex-

periments, which follow in a vision, agenda and coali-tions.

These cycles are indicative, because it is impossible to keep this in sequent steps. In the current, non-lineair world it is no blue print planning thus, it gives an indication of the following, steps to take, sometimes parallel and in random sequence. In these transitions, a command-and-control strategy is useless and doomed to fail because of the limited predictability of the behavior of a complex adaptive system (Grin et al, 2010).In these transitions are some theoretical principles, which can help to achieve the transition. The first is creating a space for innovation in niches or arenas, in which experiments can take place, sometimes in a small, closed setting. Second, the focus on frontrunners is a key aspect, these are the agents with the capacity to generate dissipative structures and op-erate within these deviant structures. Third, the principle of guided variation and selection is important, especially in the context of the Olympic Games, for example the idea of the UEFA to host the European Cup football in 13 cities. In com-plex adaptive system it is difficult to predict the best route to the best solution, by different trajectories and flexibility, the various possible routes and outcomes can be explored. The fourth principle is radical change in incremental steps, a paradox. To achieve the transition, especially in the deep structures of the regime, a radical change is needed, but this can lead to the biggest protests, because it changes too fast. Radical change in incremental steps implies a change in small steps but towards a new direction. See for example the energy transition: not changing in one day from fossil to-wards renewable sources, but taking steps of 20% every cou-ple of years. The principle of empowering niches cares for providing knowledge, financial resources, exception of rules and laws and space for the experiments (Avelino, 2007). The sixth principle of transition management consists two com-plementary parts: learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning.

Figure 8: Transition cycle (Rotmans, 2003)

Learning-by-doing is the aspect of developing theoretical knowledge and testing that through practical experience, and doing-by-learning is the development of practical expe-rience and testing that through theoretical knowledge. The last important principle is anticipation and adaptation. An-ticipation is the analysis of weak aspects of the system and by acting pro-active this steers by for the long-term. Adap-tation is the ability to continuously change this in line with the long-term trends and visions (Grin et al, 2010). All these principles are useful in creating an opportunity to make the transition. These principles will be used in suggestions for changes in the Olympic Movement and Olympic Games in part VI.

3.6 ConclusionAfter the theoretical description, a sub question can be an-swered: ‘The extend to which the transition theory can support the adjustments of the Olympic Movement to become funda-mentally more sustainable?’.

30

Part II: Theory

The transition theory can definitely be useful to become fun-damentally supportive of a sustainable ambition. The theory gives a tool in which a transition can be set up. The transition theory is deeply rooted in the system theory and thereby in the general sciences. This gives an interdisciplinary oppor-tunity to start the change with various types of profession-als. The point of view of a planner is one of them, but more is needed. Different agreed realities will merge to come to a transition path. As stated by Immanuel Kant (1996), reality is a construct of out mind and the only thing we can do un-derstanding better the reality through theory. In the change to a more sustainable system and event the transition theory can be useful and come up with opportunities because of the open, democratic, interactive and learning approach. This is important to cope with and adapt to a complex society, in which the Olympic system is participating. Especially in the Olympic system, time plays a major role. Through the characteristics of the four-year cycle on a different place in the world, the aspect of time, of becoming is essential. Dif-ferent Olympic cycles are intertwined and should be able to learn from each other during the process. Through the set up of a general body (IOC) which centrally decides about the host city the multi-level is important, they don’t imple-ment changes, they only set the changes. The multi-pattern aspect is not obvious, because of the enormous investments, commercial attention and the importance for the continued existence of the Olympic system. Different patterns hold the development and can change the worldwide opinion by one mistake, See for example Montreal (1976); still today Mon-treal is cited as an example of the high costs that must be paid by the population. On the aspect of governance should be a transition really helpful. The IOC should together with var-ious partners and professional search for a new structure, a new business model and a new spatial approach in which the strategic, tactical and operational perspectives play an im-portant role. In order to make it real transitional according to the theory, the reflexive part and the aspect of transparency, open and democratically play a crucial role. To become more fundamentally sustainable, a deep-rooted change is required, also in the governance structure. This holistic approach will not be easy to define, but in order to cope with the complex-

ity it will help for the long future.

31

4. Olympic theory

4. Olympic theoryThis research tries to combine the general transition theory for planning issues with more spe-cific Olympic theory. The Olympics theories make use of the ideas of Elena Theodoraki, Holger Preuss and are based on the structure of Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott. Concepts and ideas pre-sented in chapter 1 and 3 will be combined here in an integral theory applicable for the Olympic Games.

4.1 Introduction§ 4.2 will elaborate on the Governance aspect of the Olympic Games. It will use the theory of Chappelet & Kübler-Mab-bott, Elena Theodoraki and Henry Mintzberg to sketch the structure of the Olympic system and on the basis of their findings a renewed structure will be presented.§ 4.3 will elaborate on the sustainable aspect of the Olympic Games. It will therefore zoom in towards the planning pro-cess and theory, sustainability and legacy aspects, here the theories of Gratton & Preuss and Furrer will be used. This chapter will follow through a conclusion and will thereby fin-ish Part II of this research.

4.2 Governance of the Olympic GamesThe Olympic structure, as it is drawn in chapter 1, is the stripped version of the complete version in which there is also a role for sponsors, media, governments, the WADA and the CAS (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008). The IOC as central actor, and the OCOGs, Ifs, NOCs and NFs are still present. This basic version of the structure is also called the ‘classical version’, and this was the case until the beginning of the 1980s. Since the 1980s, there are five types of actors in the current ‘extended’ Olympic structure. These are all external actors by which the Olympic structure became more com-plex. These five types will be explained below (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008), see also Figure 9 for the structure:Governments and inter-governmental organizations: na-tional and international authorities are getting more import-ant in the legislation processes around the Olympics and the jurisdictional aspects.International sponsors: International multinationals, which

have, direct relations with the IOC and Ifs, for example the TOP program sponsors and major broadcasters. This type developed itself towards the most important revenue source because of the funding function of the sponsors.National sponsors: sponsors which work together with NOCs, NFs and the OCOG for sponsoring on national ba-sis with national restrictions, for example Asics, the clothing sponsor for the Dutch Olympic and Paralympic Team. They have a role in the national field, but not on international ba-sis.Leagues for professional teams or athletes: profession-al teams or athletes, which have a strong influence on the participation of athletes in Olympic events. For example the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and National Bas-ketball Association (NBA).Regulators: The regulators, designed to keep the competition fair. The first regulative body was the CAS, founded in 1983 to resolve disputes concerning sport by means of arbitration. The second was WADA, founded in 1999 to promote, super-vise and coordinate the fight against all forms of doping in the sportIn analyzing the current structure, the struggle of the IOC becomes clear. The IOC do not like to work with complex democratic and participative countries because the public support is somewhat lower and this brings a lot more trouble in legislation aspects. On the other hand, the less complex democratic countries, think about for example Russia, Brazil, oil states and dictatorial countries, the stakeholder system in which the IOC have to deal with is less complex and the IOC have a stronger voice in the actions they like to see, but here also come the protest of the local people, for example in

32

Part II: Theory

WADA CAS

Governmentsand inter-

governmentalorganizations

Olympic Movement(IOC, Ethics

Commission)

Internationalsponsors

NOCs OCOGs IFs

Nationalsponsors

and media

NF’s(clubs, athletes)

Leaguesof pro athletes

or teams

Figure 9: ‘extended’ Olympic structure (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008).

Brazil, or the protest from the western world about the gay propaganda in Russia. This is the struggle of complexity of the IOC. In both cases, the IOC does not have full power, see for example the torch relay through Tibet and Taiwan (Beijing 2008). All host cities have different degrees of com-plexity. The research of XML Architects (2012) has com-pared different cities, which are possible trying to host the Olympics. XML did research on Madrid, Istanbul, Tokyo, Doha, South Africa and The Netherlands about the stake-holders in the process of bidding and hosting the Olympics. The government involvement of different levels, the power of IOC-members in the complete organization and the deci-

sion-making process varies.

In order to keep the Olympic Games manageable, former IOC President Rogge launched the ‘Olympic Games Study Commission’ (OGS) to make recommendation by which costs, complexity and size the Games will be manageable, because they must be foremost a sporting event (Furrer, 2002). In this same article of Furrer, project manager for the IOC, he said: “Discussions with experts and with vari-ous constituents of the Olympic Movement confirmed that today’s Games have indeed reached a critical size and any further growth in size and cost could jeopardize the Games’ success and sustainability, i.e. the continued success of its or-ganization and of its power to raise funds from sponsors and broadcasters”, followed by “The size, cost and complexity of hosting the Games can also exceed the capacity of most cities to stage them” (Furrer, 2002: 17). It is typical that this OGS Commission and analyses were already made in 2002, and that that nothing really changed in the results. The Olympics are still getting bigger, more complex and more difficult to organize. In order to do something, the IOC decided to cap the number of sports, events and participating athletes (Fur-rer, 2002). It is good to think about this, but the sport is the core of the event and it is questionable if this is a good first step.In essence, the Olympic Movement as a set of entities is com-plex with all the different stakeholders (elements), the inter-actions between the elements and the boundaries between the system above (the ‘system’) and the outside world (the ‘environment’) of the system make that it is not a complex system in essence (McLoughin, 1969 & 1985). De Roo & Porter (2006) calls this an issue in the ‘fuzzy middle’. But by interactions and the adding of the commercial, sustainable, spatial and also political aspects in the last decades, the sys-tem became complex. The OM as a system is very hierarchi-cal, functional and thus technical organized, the system is based on direct causality and is object oriented (See figure 4). According to the research of Elena Theodoraki (2007), the Olympic Movement fits inside the ‘Divisionalised Form’ typology of organizations of Henry Mintzberg (1993). This Divisionalised Form is a closed system and fits in the broader

33

4. Olympic theory

structure of the Olympic system. Theodoraki also links the organizational theory to the systems theory, which is in her book called the open system theory. This is in line with the adaptive complex systems as presented in chapter 3 by Gert de Roo. It is described in which the acceptance with the un-certainty and the environment is crucial to adapt to markets and technologies. An organization in terms of an open sys-tem theory is defined as “a group of interrelated subsystems and attempts to establish congruencies between different systems” (Theodoraki, 2007: 13), in other words: to modify the organization in order to guide the Olympics through the transition towards a fundamental more sustainable event.

Although it is a closed system, governance plays an import-ant role in the Olympic system, in relation to the degree of self-organization. The IOC can be seen as the ‘central state’

Session, President, Executive Board, Olympic Foundation

Olympic Games Knowledge Service SA, Olympic Broadcasting Services SA

IOC & IPC administration

ContinentalNOC Associations

Commissions

Olympic Musuem,Olympic Solidarity

NOCs, IFs, OCOGs, TOPAhtletes

of the Olympic Movement, see Fig-ure 9. The system is driven by the international sponsor interests; underhanded arrangements of host cities; and internal ballots of new IOC-members, the IOC is the main actor, but without the power to rule. It is not transparent and open and forms thereby a danger for the sustainable long-term. The structure of the OM itself becomes clear from figure 10, which is in the typology of a Divisionalised Form as presented by Mintzberg (1993). This typology has some overlap with the typology of Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott (2008), the figure below focuses more on its own Olympic aspects in which the op-erating core does not really reflects the described discourse. The Na-tionals Committees, Federation, OCOGs, TOP program sponsors and athletes can not been seen as the same group, in my point of

view because of the different functions, powers and interests. So I will further focus on the other four aspects.

The executive board consists of the IOC President, four vice-presidents and ten other members, which are elected by the Session for a four-year term (Theodoraki, 2007). This structure, in which the IOC is not the only stakeholder, is in line with the hybrid forms of governance, as presented by Lemos & Agrawal (2006) in which partnerships between at least two social mechanisms cooperate and mix. In the Olympic structure, this can be reflected to the Ifs, NOCs and also the OCOGs. They together form the Olympic visibility of the brand, the Games and all the additional programs. Im-portant to note here is that the IOC tries to stay in control of all the aspects, which is in danger because of the complexity. Therefore, §6.2 will sketch a new governance structure for

Figure 10: Divisionalised Form of the Olympic Movement (Theodoraki, 2007).

34

Part II: Theory

the Olympic system and the Olympic Games According to Mintzberg (1993) leads a non-changing divi-sionalized form of organization within a structural changing society to a phenomena he calls: “a structure at the edge of a cliff” (1993, 252). Mintzberg continues by stating that a divi-sionalized organization like this settles on the end of a long path, on the edge of a cliff. In here, it is one step away from disintegration and falling apart in separate pieces (Mintz-berg, 1993). This is something that should be prevented to change along the society.

4.3 Sustainable Olympic GamesAs stated in chapter 2, the notion of sustainability is a real fuzzy notion, and therefore it is important to define sus-tainability for the Olympic context and make it operation-al, related to actions. For developments in this direction see Cantelon & Letters (2000); Furrer (2002); Pitts & Liao (2012); and Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe (2012). The Olym-pic Movement intents to move into a more sustainable sys-tem, but does not follow that by applicable requirements for candidate cities. The goal of this paragraph is to achieve this definition and test this in chapter 7 on the case of London. An important remark is that it is extremely difficult to be sustainable in respect to the Olympics on a certain day, this because of the context dependency and also because always lasting impact of building and traveling. What can be sus-tainable for a western society; can be very unsustainable for people from another context. The Olympics can make a con-tribution to a world that is more sustainable.

An important notion in the organization of one-off me-ga-events is the difference between policy goals and the practical performance during the preparations. Due to lack of time, some setbacks and the complexity of the projects, some changes have to be made during the process. Flexi-bility is needed. In these flexibility and ad hoc adjustments, the sustainable part is the victim in most cases (Interview Herbert Wolff, 2013). The connection between the long-term development vision and short-term hosting of the event go separate ways. The sustainable and legacy aspects turned into a neglected child. An important cause of this is the notion

that sustainable measurements in first instance cost money and effort. Especially when trying to do it halfway it proba-bly cost a lot and the profits are minimal. The environmental ambition has a weak profile here.

In the current discourse, the notions of ‘legacy’ and ‘sustain-ability’ have a different function. Legacy is seen as the aspect which comes into play after the event, or at least after the event is planned; and sustainability is environment, and is in the case of the ‘Sport & Environment’ program of the UN and IOC. But no single Olympic Games do have the legacy vision incorporated from the beginning, London was ‘early’, three years in prior to the Games, but this was already four years after the selection of London.

Planning process and theoryFrom the beginning of the Olympics, the process was more of a trial-and-error procedure, towards a quantitative mea-sured environment nowadays. During the analysis of litera-ture became clear that the IOC has an enormous impact on the spatial impact of the Games. This in itself is not weird, because of the governmental task of the IOC, but by the re-quirements, they have a strong steering influence on the spa-tial vision and thereby the impact for a city. These Reports, the W-Report and E-Report (see also chapter 1) are present-ed, since the 1990s and the crises they are part of the process. The W-Report is based on a ranking-system to make the first selection between the cities that does not comply with the basic requirements. From this ranking becomes clear that the short-term of hosting the event is a leading aspect for the IOC. 17% of the ranking has a relation to the long-term impact of sustainability and legacy, 75% has a relation to the short-term organization of the Games, see Appendix 2 for the list (IOC, 2004). So, the opportunity of achieving an ur-ban development is underestimate and of very small interest of the IOC.The E-Report is a comment-based checklist to help the IOC-member to vote (Pitts & Liao, 2009). According to Pitts & Liao (2009: 115) these reports ‘have strong impacts on the host city selection’, but this is not argued. Why, if there are one, or maybe two cities which ranked the best after both

35

4. Olympic theory

reports, is there no candidate city that gets the majority of the votes in the first rounds? IOC-member does not just vote because of the ranking, there is more behind it. This as-pect of the theory cannot be deconstructed, because of the non-transparent and secret procedures and election within the IOC. This is all classified information.

According to the rationality of the process, it does not stroke with the current procedures in which the bid book is a blueprint plan for the next seven years. The Bidding Man-ual declared: ‘It is fundamental that from the beginning of the candidature to the post-Olympic period, all measures are taken to minimize or eliminate negative impact on the envi-ronment and contribute to the harmonious integration of the Olympic Games into the natural surroundings’ (IOC, 2004). By this statement, the IOC gives a direction towards a strate-gy, which cares about the environment, but links no tangible demands on it. It stays vague and from a real top-down per-spective in which the context does not play a clear role; and does not contain the social and economic aspects.

SustainabilityThe aspect of sustainability was already part of the Olympic ideals since the times of Pierre de Coubertin. His idea was to use sport in teaching the world’s youth basic human values that would enable them to lead better lives and build bet-ter communities. Nowadays, the IOC tries to cover this by the Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21, the Transfer of Olym-pic Knowledge (TOK), Olympic Games Knowledge Series (OGKS), Olympic Games Study Commission (OGS) and the Olympic Games Impact (OGI). As presented in chapter 1, the Agenda 21 covers mainly the environmental protection of the planet, the TOK and OGKS is the transfer between different host cities and specific education services, so no real pro-ac-tive bodies to improve the long-term impact and vision of the Olympics. The Olympic Study Commission got the mis-sion to control the costs and complexity of the Games, by the notion that it is still a sports event. Thus a commission that tries to keep the organization of three weeks sport control-lable. This is overly ambitious since there are other interests: the commission started in 2000, and since then, the Games

only got bigger and more complex, due to the requirements of the IOC. The IOC had sought cooperation with the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which resulted in a Cooperative Agreement in 1994 and the IOC Sport and Environment Commission in 1995. Through this integration it is now called the ‘Third pillar of Olympism’ and is since 2011 it is included in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2011, Rule 2.13)(Cox, 2012). In this discussion, around the year 2000, the analysis was made that the Games reached a critical size and that further grow could damage the Games, also in rela-tion to the host-city (Essex & Chalkley, 1999; Furrer, 2002), but since then, there is not changed that much. The Games grow bigger, more investments, larger commercial interests, bigger impacts on cities, so long-term vision in which the Olympics are a means and no end it is still undervalued. Sim-ilar discussions were held in 1928; 1968; around the election of Jacques Rogge (around 2000); and also by the election of Thomas Bach in 2013 (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013; Chauhan, 2013). By the various measurement projects, the IOC tries to cope with the growing complexity by using more indicators; chapter 3 reflected that more indicators do not definitely improve the measurements and quality of results. To incorporate the Brundtland definition in the Olympics is hard. Hosting the Games has a big impact on the city’s ac-commodation stock, land use, energy supply, waste manage-ment, sewage system, transport and security networks and water consumption. This all according the standards of the IOC, which sets a host city for an enormous challenge to ac-commodate this during the Games, and to make in profitable after the Games. So the regular definition of sustainability is not one on one applicable on mega events in general and on the Olympic Games is specific.

In order to cope with the current effects of the Games, Phil-lipe Furrer (2002), project manager at the IOC, wrote an ar-ticle about the sustainable aspect of the Olympics. From his point of view, the ‘sustainable’ part of the Olympics is in first instance ‘that the funding from broadcast rights and fees and sponsors continues’ (Furrer, 2002: 25). This reflects the defi-nition of ‘keeping alive’ of the Olympics. After that, sustain-able Olympic Games must (Furrer, 2002: 25):

36

Part II: Theory

• “Contribute to the sustainable development of the host city and region through their economic, social and en-vironmental legacy;

• Be conceived from the outset as an opportunity to ad-dress serious urban and regional challenges, and to promote development solutions and innovations which maintain or even improve the quality of life of all resi-dents;

• Lead to the management of all local and regional re-sources (financial, social and environmental) in a way that the Olympic Games’ requirements can be fulfilled while maintaining harmonious socio-economic urban and regional milieus and safeguarding the cultural in-tegrity at the same time, biological diversity and life sup-port systems of the host city and region;

• Include the public through genuine consultation pro-cesses at the earliest stage and beware of local agendas driven by a showcasing need;

• Benefit equally all layers of the host population;• Identify and address risks, as well as mitigate distress or

drawbacks caused by the residents.”By achieving these goals, the Olympics deserve the label ‘sus-tainable’ according to Furrer (2002).

The current notion of sustainability with its four pillars (hu-man, social, economic and environmental, both built and natural) are separated by the IOC; here the Agenda 21 project covers mostly the social aspect, but not the economic aspect, which is strange in a system considering the economic ratio-nal like the Olympic system follows (Hiller, 1998; Horton & Zakus, 2010). The IOC (2012) report ‘Sustainability through sport’ is stated that due to the complete different contexts it is not a real option to set strict environmental standards. To come to a definition, the previous mentioned aspects of sus-tainable Olympic will be taken into account. This results in the following definition: ‘‘Sustainable Olympic Games are de-veloped in towards the long-term future of the city in regarding the social, ecological and economical aspects in a transparent decision-making process’’. The 2012 London Olympics were a good result in which the sustainability got a major role. This will be further elaborated in chapter 7, but important to no-

tice here is that the sustainability goals were initiated by the London bid. After it has turned out well, it is now part of the general evaluation process (Interview Herbert Wolff, 2013). Thus, it is in several aspects also a more communicative ra-tional, Class IV system. The bottom up experiments workout and through learning-by-doing the process improves in time. Here it reflects some characteristics of an adaptive complex system as defined by Grin et al (2010). In other aspects, the learning aspects are not used to full potential because of the limited timeframe (OGI) or the lack of honest reports on im-provements (OGS).

LegacyThe danger with legacy plans and mega events is that mega events are often seen as ‘footloose industries’, they mobilize investments for a short term prior to the Games, and af-terwards they disappear. An important aspect of the short-term focus of the Olympic Games is the underestimation of the legacy of the Games, this became an aspect with the Games of 2000. The IOC introduced in 2000 the Olympic Games Global Impact (OGGI), later transformed to Olympic Games Impact Study (OGI), to develop objective and scien-tific analysis of the impact, on which they can anticipate for the next Olympiad. The problem with this program is that it ends three years after the Games. For example, the OGI Study of the London 2012 Olympics ends with a Final Re-port in 2015, but the year 2015-2016 is the first full year of events and activities in the park. According to the schedule the former Olympic Park opens in the spring of 2014. The real legacy only becomes clear after a couple of years. This relatively short period after the Games is an important as-pect of the underestimation. Legacy is about how much of the investments are used on the long-term, this depends on the context, the size of investments, for example: the state of the transport system, the offer of the hotels and different other facilities. It is often used to show the involvement of the public sector and their return on investment (Thomson, Leopkey, Schlenker & Shulenkorf, 2010). Every edition has aspects, which are not used or oversized to use the complete capacity in the long-term after the Olympics. The aspects of the good and useful aspects that stay after the Games are

37

4. Olympic theory

called ‘positive legacy’, and the unused or oversized aspects are called ‘negative legacy’. A positive legacy is also seen in the interest of the IOC, for three reasons (Gratton & Preuss, 2008):1. A positive legacy avoids blaming the IOC in the pro-

vision of ridiculous requirements for the host city and shows the reason it is good for the city;

2. The use of big amounts of public money for investments can be justified;

3. By showing the positive aspects, it motivates other cities to bid for future events.

Although the appreciation of legacy depends on the perspec-tive, something can be a positive legacy for tourism and at the same time a negative legacy for environment. Due to the short period of monitoring the legacy, the OGI-program does not really reaches their goal and it is mainly window-dress-ing because it is not integrated in the learning curve for the next Olympiad.

This comes together in a definition of legacy. Important to note is that the IOC itself has no definition of what they ex-actly mean by legacy. It is mentioned in the Olympic Charter, as ‘It is the IOC’s role to promote a positive legacy from the Olympic Games to the host cities and host countries’ (IOC, 2013). This is a typical vague and exalted goal as stated in chapter 1 by Horne & Whannel (2012). The IOC makes a dis-tinction between five categories: sport, social, environmen-tal, urban and economic. This can all be in a tangible and intangible form (Gratton & Preuss, 2008). In this respect, the IOC also uses the term ‘impact’ to describe the effects of a policy, program or project and the negative or damaging ef-fect (IOC, 2013b). It is strange that the IOC sets no clear defi-nition of legacy in their reports (Horne & Whannel, 2012), because they steer on it in the bid books and in the decision which city is chosen to host the Games. This can be declared by the fact that the IOC now can explain it in a positive way according to the interest of the IOC and the Olympic Move-ment (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Without a clear definition it is much easier to tell the good news show without mention-ing the bad news. This is also seen in the report on ‘Olym-pic Games: Legacies and impacts’ of the IOC (2013b), there

are many examples from different Olympics mentioned, but without a clear line and only positive experiences.

The most commonly used definition of legacy is defined by Preuss (2007: 87): ‘Legacy is planned and unplanned, positive and negative, intangible and tangible structure created through a sport event that remain after the event’. Most of the stud-ies made, which are held before the Olympics, focus on the tangible, positive and planned legacy. The potential risks of failed legacies is often unmentioned and without a clear re-sponsibility of the IOC or the city (Interview Herbert Wolff, 2013; Kassens-Noor, 2012). This is only a minor aspect of the total range of legacy perspectives; the concept of legacy has evolved achieving general benefits for the hosting city, to-wards achieving a strategically long-term sustainable legacy plan (Leopkey & Parent, 2012a). This legacy cube model, as it is called, is further developed towards a ‘Green Legacy model of Mega Events’ (See Figure 11)(Preuss, 2013). In this figure, the first dimension is the structure; this is the structure in which the host cities differ from each other. They all have a different structure, resulting in a different environmental impact. The structure is tangible or intangible, but to some degree for the Games. The distinction on what is specific for the Olympics, and what is for structural urban development is important to avoid double counting.The second dimension is the branch in which a variety of sectors can be analyzed. The focus in this research is based on environment, but also sport or politics are options for a focus. The concepts on both other axis can be explained ac-cording to the focus on the branch.The third dimension is the site; this is something that chang-es after the event. Some of the sites will disappear; most will continue to exist for a longer or shorter period. The influence of the IOC is great in the achievement of a benefitting leg-acy and the difference between hosting the ‘Perfect Games’ and the city’s foresight and sophistication for a development path. Kassens-Noor (2012) states that the cities dream of us-ing the Games for development, had led to a different urban reality in the majority of the cases because of the mismatch between the cities goals and the IOC requirements.

38

Part II: Theory

A green legacy has different parts in which they can con-tribute to an environmental development: environmental infrastructure, environmental knowledge, environmental networks, environmental culture, environmental policies, and environmental emotions (Preuss, 2013). But Preuss also mentions that the influence and the contribution mega events can develop a green economy. This because of the past events did not show that good results, especially not on the long-term. Mega events have a big advantage because of the visibility, branding and attention (Preuss, 2013). In here, Pre-uss does not mention the transition of the governance model. Legacy is not a fixed notion; it is rather evolving and dynam-ic (Cashman, 2006). This critique is not that valuable. Leop-key & Parent (2012b) add necessity of legacy governance to proactive the legacy benefits. Important to notice here is that in the current governance model nobody is responsible for the legacy after the Games. During the bid phase, the city includes a vision for the long-term legacy, after the selection the OCOG is responsible for delivering the Games. But after

Figure: 11 Green legacy cube (Preuss, 2013: 3587).

the Games, within two years the OCOG is disbanded, the OGI program stops and no ‘Olympic-body’ visits the for-mer host city (Agha et al, 2010). The IOC is not responsible because cities participating voluntarily in the bidding phase (Interview Herbert Wolff), so the only stakeholder that is in-volved during the whole process is the city. 4.4 ConclusionThis chapter analyzed specific developments on the Olym-pic system. The IOC focuses on short-term benefits for the Olympic Movement with the commercial thoughts in mind. This does not match with the long-term legacy point of view in which the host city can improve the city, because of lacking a general accepted definition and because of the possible multi-interpretation of the concept. Also the differ-ent timefocuses can play a role here. By the culture of the Olympic Movement and the host city selection it takes seven years before changes are visible. The governance system is very top-down designed with a lot of big and international

39

4. Olympic theory

stakeholders with their own interests. The IOC tries to rule the system in a very technical and rational way but discov-ers through time more problems with this. The continuously growing complexity of the system makes it hard to predict and to rule it.On the aspect of sustainability, the idea of ‘keeping alive’ the Olympics is the main aspect in this discussion. Thereby, there are some vague and general ideas in which the Olympics can contribute to the fuzzy notion of a more sustainable living. After the commercial and sustainable wave in the Olympic system, the last wave is the aspect of legacy. This became important at the beginning of this century and is developed by Holger Preuss, in large parts, but is still a not integrated aspect, like the sustainability aspect. The holistic approach is missing in the current theoretical debate. This will be elab-orated in chapter 6.The importance and impact of the Games makes the IOC an important and global stakeholder in the urban development in host cities. In the complete process of bidding and host-ing the Olympics and using the short-term developments afterwards, there is one major distinction: the short-term goals from the IOC and the long-term developmental ideals from a city. The IOC does not feel the trade-off, it only pays a minor aspect and thereby has a major interest in only the Games, while the city wants to host the Games, but wants to use it as a meaning to achieve the long-term strategy and give it a boost. To what extent are the Olympic Games an opportunity to achieve a spatial development? According to Essex & Chalk-ley (1999) and Furrer (2002), the current design of the Olym-pics reached their limit; their size and also impact on host cities makes it not responsible to grow further. These findings indicate that there is an impact on host cities and that this im-pact has it boundaries. According to Gratton & Preuss (2008) and Preuss (2013) is the legacy, the impact on the host city is important for the IOC. This reflects that not only the de-livery of the Games is important, but also the post-use of the investments. Thus, the IOC and host cities should together come up to a solution. Here, the statement of Kassens-Noor (2012) about the dreams and realities of city comes by. Host cities have a dream in mind but will be confronted with a

reality what does not look like the dream. This is in major aspect the responsibility of the host city, but if this happens every four-year cycle, also the IOC has a task to improve this, especially through the influence of the IOC on the process by the requirements. This all together: the Olympic Games are a real opportunity to achieve a spatial development. In some way, it is mandatory by the requirements of the IOC. There is no city that has an area in which five big stadiums are located and where a transport capacity of 60.000 people per hour is available. So the Olympics are an opportunity, but this op-portunity does not become a reality in most cases due to the mismatch between the city goals and the IOC requirements.This answers the sub question answered for which stakehold-er a change would be desirable. It is definitely in the interest of the future host cities because of their dream and reality by hosting the Games. Thereby it is also an interest of the IOC, because they do get a bad reputation by the long lasting leg-acies that are not used.

Part III: Analysis

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

43

5. Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions

5. Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitionsIn the current Olympic system, there are some initiatives, which are in line with, or opposing a sustainable transition as described in chapter 3 and 4. The concepts that will be described are the lack of accountability, lack of a long-term vision, the social and local support and the first directions towards a more democratic system.

5.1 IntroductionThis chapter will analyze the current procedures and changes in processes of the Olympic Movement and connect those to the defined concepts. This is done according to the three ma-jor aspects of sustainability: the ecological aspect (§5.2), the economic aspect (§5.3) and the social aspect (§5.4). Chap-ter 6 will continue this towards more sustainable Olympic Movement in the future.

5.2 the ecological aspectSince the emerging report of the Lillehammer Wintergames of 1994, the IOC and the Olympic Movement is working on the incorporation of an environmental ambition. As elabo-rated in chapter 1 and 4 has ‘the environment’ slowly claimed a position in current bidding and hosting procedure of the Olympic Movement. This Sport and Environment program of the IOC focuses mainly on the environmental sustainabil-ity aspect (Cantelon & Letters, 2000). This paragraph covers not only the ecological aspect, but also the spatial aspect; which has a major influence on the pure environmental aspect by the land-use.

The aspect of legacy and impact of the hosting Olympics has a strong relation with the IOC requirements. When a city decides to bid for the Olympics, they know the requirements of the IOC and by the selection of the host city an agree-ment is signed were among things also the legacy and im-pact aspects are covered. The practical implementation on detail is a task for the city and the OCOG, but the IOC does have an influence on this (Kassens-Noor, 2012). This influ-ence reflects in the spatial impact of an Olympic Park and

Village with short distances, a rail transport system, and a high capacity of stadiums. Although, not only the IOC is accountable for this impact, the city decides voluntarily to bid and to have the ambition to host the Olympics, so they are responsible for the long-term visions and plans. The IOC does not require launching a bid. Hereby looking specifical-ly to the environmental ambitions, Rio de Janeiro proposed a rigorous program of environmental protection (Pentifallo & VanWynsberghe, 2012), but the question remains, what will be realized. An important aspect in this discussion on accountability, environmental and also social sustainability is the fact that the organizational bodies change during the process. In the bidding phase, there is the Bid Organizing Committee (BOC), during preparations of the Games it is the OCOG, and after the Games it is the Legacy Company. The BOC makes the promises towards the IOC; OCOG pre-pares and delivers the Games and the Legacy Company cares about the long-term future. The OCOG do not necessarily needs to come with a follow-up on the BOC promises, so the long-term urban development is out of sight by now. Can-didate cities can design wonderful stadiums, draw fantastic plans and host great Olympics, but nobody cares about what promises are fulfilled. The IOC is not accountable for there choices, why do they still accept that candidate cities have a complete plan for sustainability in their Games and their legacy? This is endorsed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): “Accountability is a key pre-requisite for achieving sustainable development” (OECD, 2002: 12). Another aspect is the position of the BOC regarding the IOC. The IOC is responsible for the selection of the host city, so the BOC objectives do resemble on the IOC objectives. In order to improve something on this pro-

44

Part III: Analysis

cedure, the IOC tried to improve (Pentifallo & VanWynsber-ghe, 2012). All these attempts have not really been effective, likely by the way of implementation: the IOC makes plans to change, and tries to improve aspects in a top-down way and local parties can not do anything with it. There is no room for local initiatives, no connection between the regime and the niche stakeholders and no interaction. There is definitely no hybrid governance model.

Besides the environmental legacy aspect, also the long-term vision for the city is an important aspect for the ecological point of view. This is mentioned because of the high pres-sure of the process and the strict deadlines. At the day a city is chosen to host the Olympics, the seven-year preparation time starts. The editions of Athens, 2004, Turin 2006 and now also the Sochi 2014 Games show that this deadline can become a problem. The consequence of the deadline is that the process of public participation and adjustments of the vi-sion in favor of the local interests is frequently lacking. This results in citizens protesting against the developments con-cerning the Games (Sochi 2014, Rio 2016) and thereby the lack of a balanced long-term vision for the surrounding area. This can result in developments pure for the Games with an added value for the neighborhood or a unilateral develop-ment on the interest of a single developer or stake. If a city do have a long-term vision in which is a place for the Olympics, but the Olympics are a means to reach the end, the procedure-time is not just the seven years after selection, but also a decade before.An example of this is Sochi. It sounds maybe a bit strange because of the protests, the stories that it isn’t a winter resort but a summer resort; although the Olympics are on one point used to develop an area for the long-term. Russia does not have an elite-mountain resort for their top athletes to pre-pare for their competitions. Now, through the hosting of the Sochi Winter Games, an elite mountain accommodation is build, which can be used by the Russian winter athletes in the next decades. The long-term vision uses the Olympics to reach a goal. If the means to reach is legitimate, by demolish-ing a natural forest, building facilities on geological unstable ground is questionable from a western point of view; and

there are a lot of other doubtful development and procedures (Gentelev, 2013). But the idea is good in an economic long-term aspect; the mountain accommodation is not build for just three weeks, but for the long-term by using the Olym-pics. This reflects the fuzziness of the concepts of sustainabil-ity and legacy.

So, the ecological aspect has grown since the beginning of the 1990s, but still got a minor role in the complete procedure and requirements. The aspect of hosting the Perfect Games is major for the IOC and every other interest is pushed off to-wards the host city. In spatial terms, it is impossible to speak about a holistic approach in which there is an interaction be-tween different levels. All the separate levels do something with the best intentions, but the real step towards a transition is not achieved.

5.3 the economical aspectThe economic aspects of the Olympic Games are mainly for achieving the highest possible revenues, and thereby sustain-ing the Olympic Games for the next editions (Furrer, 2002). This is for the IOC an important part, see chapter 1, but also for cities. Cities bid on the Olympics because they think they can earn money with hosting the Games. Tourism is one of the major goals for many cities, ‘placing your city on the map’. Once again Barcelona is a well-known example, before 1992, Barcelona was no real tourist destination. It was an old-fash-ioned city with lots of old industrial areas, after being the center of the world for two weeks; Barcelona is one of the major tourist cities in the world. Although, this could also happened without the Games, because it is no panacea. An-other aspect is the financial concentration of the Games. The Games are hosted in one city, so all the investment money will go to that city, and it is impossible to invest that money in other parts of the country, so all the national taxes are ap-plied in one city but paid by people from the whole country (Scotsman, 2011). An interesting question to ask in this case is what it is worth it to not host the Games, how much will people pay for that? But also the revenues are for only that one city, so the taxpayers outside the host city pay their taxes, but do not get the profits from this. This is also the case for a

45

5. Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions

lot of local businesses. During the London 2012 Games, Greenwich Park was the historical venue for the horse competitions and the equestri-an events. For guiding the mass of people from the Under-ground transport links to the venue there were marked routes to improve the speed of the spectators, which resulted in a street with barriers where it was impossible to buy or drink something in the local businesses. Result of the research is that 58,3% of the surveyed local business had a substantial loss of revenues during the Games (Vlachos, forthcoming). The only focus in this aspect is the delivery of the Games on time, the long-term vision of the host city is no longer important.

Through the developments of the last decades, the business model of the IOC developed towards a model based on four

Olympic  Revenues  

47,8%  Broadcas.ng  

11,8%  TOP  program  

22,8%  OGOC  Sponsors  

15,4%  Ticke.ng  

2,1%  Licensing  

Figure 12: Olympic revenues for the Vancouver 2010 and Lon-don 2012 Olympics (IOC, 2013c). For specified information see Appendix 2.

pillars, see also figure 12 (IOC, 2013c).

Other economic aspects of mega events are the venues. Sta-diums are more and more architectural delights, to show the abilities of a country and to attract tourists just for the stadium; just like the 2 million people visited the Beijing Bird’s Nest in 2011 (Yugian, 2012). The big question here is the affair of a permanent or temporary stadium. Temporary stadiums are more of less 70% of the prices of a permanent venue. The big difference is that a permanent venue needs maintenance during the complete life cycle (Cartalis, 2013).

So, the economic aspects from the IOC’s point of view are quiet clear. The most important aspect is to sustain the Olympics for the future. In order to do this, revenues has to be achieved, mostly by sponsorships, global and national and broadcasting rights. More than 80% of the revenues are from these sources, so there could be argued that they are floating for a majority on commercial money, and thereby on commercial interests. This became already visible in Syd-ney, 2000: swimmers had to swim early in the morning, be-cause it could be live broadcasted on primetime in the Unit-ed States. Such a commercial event is not on definition bad, but it is not flexible and robust in the case of an emergency, and is losing their ideals: something, which is important in

the Olympics. These revenues are only getting higher, so the interest is becoming more important. In the light of the tran-sition theory, the local interest should need to be of more importance.

5.4 the social aspectSocial aspects have always played a role in hosting the Olym-pic Games. From the beginning of Pierre de Coubertin hu-manity is an important aspect. The social aspect covers the human interaction through citizens, businesses of powerful groups and less powerful minority groups. This is difficult to quantify, it covers various aspects, like: citizens, business, ed-ucation, the party aspect, but also the housing and employ-ment questions. These different aspects are hard to measure, there are no hard facts and it is questionable if an improve-ment in, for example, school performances has a relation with a side program of the Games. Although, according to the transition theory it is an important aspect in the human-ity of the complete process. It is not all about money, but also about the livability and happiness of the people.These intangible aspects are important to achieve in a sustain-able and long lasting benefit for a city. In prior to the Games, the collaboration between the different governments, public bodies and private stakeholders is necessary. The networks,

46

Part III: Analysis

which are originated during this pro-cess, are useful in other projects af-ter the Games. The same applies for the volunteers’ organization. Lots of people experienced the good feeling of doing voluntarily work and many people will help with other events after the Games (Rayner, 2012), al-though it is hard to keep people ac-tive (Gibson, 2013).Also the social surrounding aspects do have an influence on the Olympic Games. This is not specific one aspect within the power of the IOC, but it is important for the city. If many people lose a job, leave their house and can-not enjoy the positive aspects of the Games, it will reflect in protest and offensive opinions of the citizens. If they gain jobs, get a new or alterna-tive house and do enjoy the Games, they have a good view and this will have a good reflection on the tourists and on the city. This is mainly as task for the OCOG in the preparations of

0  

500  

1000  

1500  

2000  

2500  

3000  

3500  

4000  

4500  

1993-­‐1996   1997-­‐2000   2001-­‐2004   2005-­‐2008   2009-­‐2012  

Millions  dollars  

Olympiads  

Olympic  revenues  in  last  five  Olympiads  (1993-­‐2012)  

Broadcas4ng  

TOP  Program  

OGOC  sponsors  

Ticke4ng  

Licensing  

Figure 13: Olympic revenues in the last five Olympic cycles (1993-2012) (IOC, 2013c).

the Games, although it is made difficult by the IOC require-ments. Through the strict deadline, but mainly a preparation time of only seven years, it is almost impossible to move along a complete public participation procedure. As a result, the local public is more likely to protest against the Games, because they did not give a voice in the developments. Here is a task for the IOC to maybe change these preparation times. Instruments to improve this can be a referendum in the applicant city before the bidding phase and the extension of the preparation time. Seven years is probably too short for urban development, which usually takes about 20-25 years. Two or four years extra will help in this case.One of the aspects which are specific an IOC affair, is the development of the Athletes Commission of the IOC. This develops in a good direction. This Commission is part of the Session and these athletes are also IOC-member, because of

their sport merits. They are chosen democratically, and the Commission is a slowly growing group. This is a good de-velopment from a democratic perspective, because of the in-fluence in decision-making processes of former top-athletes, who know the Games from the field perspective. The former athletes provide another point of view in the discussion in the IOC, which is important for the interaction.

A pure social part is the humanity of the Olympic Movement and Games in many aspects. This varies from education of children, to housing poor people and from local jobs to so-cial accountability. This development through sport is since the time of Pierre de Coubertin as aspect of the Olympic ide-als. On the various aspects there are different initiatives and programs with different organizations and federations. The programs are divided in the following (IOC, 2013d):

47

5. Current Olympic developments to sustainable transitions

• Sport for all people• Development through sport• Education through sport• Women and sport• Peace through sport• Sport and environment

The exact goals and achievements of these different pro-grams are a kind of vague. There are no annual reports avail-able which made clear what the results are. It is good that these programs exist and, in cooperation with different other parties, like the UN, they will have good results. But it would be good if its measurable, so other programs can learn from them.

Thus, the IOC and the surrounding bodies try to do some-thing about social responsibility, they interact with many federations and NGO’s and try to measure the impact and influences of the Olympics, but the results do not become very clear. The IOC could improve this transparency by a change of the Olympic Movement. Thinking about transpar-ency, accountability, flexibility and robustness to change the Olympic Movement. All these factors do not play an import-ant role in the state of affairs within the Olympic Movement today

5.5 ConclusionTo conclude this chapter, the Olympic Movement is not a real progressive institute because of its design, but there are some developments towards a transitional direction. As usual in transitional changes, these developments start at the experimental level of the system. This chapter covers the role of the regime level in this; here is the IOC mentioned as part of shaping the worldwide society. The IOC and the Olympic Movement do allow and stimulate some changes towards a new kind of thinking. For example: putting the environmen-tal issue on the agenda of the events. The Olympic Movement was really early with this. Many sport federations nowadays are just starting to do something with this. On the other hand, the cork of the Olympic Movement floats on the com-mercial money and thereby commercial interests, and that while the Olympic Movement got a special place because of

the ideological basis and utopian potential (See chapter 1).To answer the question: ‘allows the IOC more focus on the long-term urban developments?’ the findings from the para-graphs come together. On the environmental aspect the main focus is on the natural environment, the more urban environment, important in urban areas where the Summer Games are hosted, are somewhat off screen. There is no ho-listic approach with strong interaction between different levels of society, everybody works on there own island and nobody is looking at a longer future. The economic aspect is mainly focusing on sustaining the Olympics on the long term by repeating their cycle every four year. More money is earned, thus everything is going well. But 80% of the money is from commercial interest, but with losing the local inter-ests. Social aspects, transparency, flexibility, robustness and accountability are important aspects, but the IOC uses none of these. The IOC tries to do well with programs for educa-tion, health and job creation, but there are no results mea-sured thus nobody knows what is happening and what can be improved: there is no interaction.Although not only the IOC is responsible for achieving im-provements for the worldwide society, also the host cities do have a task in this. The host cities are a voluntarily candidate to host the Games, and they have a task to keep the long-term urban development in mind. The difficulty with the current requirements is that they do not give the host city enough freedom to come up with local improvement, because the IOC do not want to risk a failed Olympic Games. Also the measurement of the results of former host-cities is inad-equate. The OGI program ends two years after the Games, while the real legacy gets clear after 10 years, or maybe 20 years: it measures and understands the impact before, during and after the Games. But there is no applicable standard like: a reduction of 50% of the emissions is necessary to get the label ‘Green Olympics’.Thus, all together, the IOC does not promote to look beyond the deadline of delivery, and also does not allow many initia-tives from cities.

48

Part III: Analysis

49

6. Olympic transition

6. Olympic transitionIn the beginning, the Olympic Games did not have much to do with urban planning. It was a sport event, and the only newly build infrastructure was an Olympic Stadium and for the rest they used existing buildings. Although, as sketched in chapter one: the Olympics are evolving towards more than just a sport event.

6.1 IntroductionHarvey (1989) stated already in 1989 that de-industrialized and post-modern societies ‘urban spectacles’ has become a key element of urban en economic policy (Harvey, 1989), in which the Olympic Games are an emerging example. Ten years later, Essex & Chalkley (1999) found a similar role for mega events. The Olympics are developing more towards an urban development tool (Kassens-Noor, 2012), but without an equal development of the procedures and requirements. So, nowadays, the Games does not fit in a planning model (Essex & Chalkley, 2005), due to the lack of priority of legacy (IOC, 2003), the frequent creation of white elephants (Gold & Gold, 2007) and the power and influence of the IOC (Kas-sens-Noor, 2012), a major revision of the spatial impact and thereby the general typology of the Games is necessary. If the Olympic Games are becoming an event of not just a com-mercialized sports event, but also a showcase for long-term sustainable urban regeneration, some important changes are required both regarding the requirements and accountabili-ties for host cities and the institutional structure of the IOC. This chapter will elaborate on this. The foundation for the spatial impact comes from the institutional design and re-quirements. One of the main problems in the current spatial impact is rule 34 of the Olympic Charter, it regulates that: ‘All sports competition must take place in the host city of the Olympic Games, unless the IOC Executive Board autho-rizes the organization of certain events in other cities, sites or venues situated in the same country’ (IOC, 2013: 70). By this rule, the IOC places itself into the position of a prin-ciple of urban development. Chapter 4 forms the basis for this connection between the different domains. According to the transition theory, the current society is non-lineair and

thereby is it only possible to give some suggestion for possible future change. Key is being flexible and robust to be able to adapt to the continuously changing conditions. Interaction between different level and sustainability are major points of focus. The aspects are covered to change the typology of the Olympic system are: the structure (§6.2) and the Olympic procedures (§6.3). This result not in blueprints on what the future should look like, so therefore, these suggestions are ideas based on research and personal ideas of the author, but are definitely not a guide towards a new Olympic structure. It just gives a suggestion on how it could transform the typolo-gy, structure and impact of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games (§6.4).

6.2 The Olympic structureIn order to give the opportunity to achieve a sustainable transition, the current Olympic structure should be updat-ed towards a more transparent and sustainable structure. Through decades, the problem of a growing complexity through adding of the regulators (WADA & CAS), sponsors, and also leagues of professional athletes and teams became clear. Updating the current system is preferred according to the transition theory (Rotmans, 2012), instead of building up a new one. Figure 9 (Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott, 2008) is the starting point.

The proposed update supports the change towards a more sustainable, long-term focused structure. Transparency is a major concept to cope with the growing complexity of the surrounding developments (Grin et al., 2010) and thereaf-ter it can become more local and bottom up organized to achieve an OM on human scale with observance of the sur-

50

Part III: Analysis

rounding environment. In this shift, the power and amount of stakeholders decreases and shifts from top-down to more bottom up organized structure in which there is a real inter-est in the future of the Olympic ideals (Rotmans, 2012). The more bottom up focused structure will help to gain interac-tion between different niches, because of a clear balanced and delineated position in the whole; can make a consideration of the sustainability perspective; and will be able to respond to a continues evolving society (Grin et al., 2010). Every stakeholder knows its responsibility and can learn through interaction what can be improved. According to these de-velopments, the Olympic system can develop itself towards an experimental complex adaptive system, which is flexible and adaptable enough to cope with the worldwide changing conditions of the surrounding developments and is no lon-ger bigger than the scope of the IOC (Gamesbid, 2013; Inter-view Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). The aspect of time and of

This will help in the reduction of the influence of the inter-national sponsors and to achieve a sustainable and balanced power-relation. The reason for this is that the sponsors rule the decision-making process (Cartalis, 2013; Interview Jur-ryt van de Vooren, 2013). Also the Leagues of professional athletes should no longer be a part of the system. A vast ma-jority of the athletes is professional. As a possible suggestion the tennis professionals state that the Grand Slams are more important than the Olympics, why would the IOC keep host-ing those sports during the Olympics? The same case is here with soccer: the EUFA European Cup and FIFA World Cup do prevail above the Olympics. According to the FIFA rules, only players under 23 years old are allowed to participate. Re-search among athletes is important here to see if something like this is wanted; it would be suggestion to return to a hu-man scale of the event. Why not make space for other sports? This will keep the sports fresh and the IOC keeps their posi-

WADA & CAS

governments& NGOs

Olympic Movement

NOCsNational sponsors

NFs & athletes

IFs

Inte

rnat

iona

l sp

onso

rs

OCOGs

Figure 14: updated Olympic structure (Made by Bastiaan Bretveld & Janneke van der Horst).

sustainability can be integrated here by the interaction of the complex adaptive system. In words of De Roo, (2010) it is the step towards Class IV systems. By the shift towards a hybrid governance model in which the IOC, OCOGs and Legacy Company have the most im-portant role it remains possible to continuous devel-op the system to become a self-regulating event with a flexible structure. The updated structure forms the basis of the revised system, which results in Figure 14. The development between the old system and the new system is described and visualized in Appendix 1.

Some highlights from this process are the regulators, the new role of the OM and OCOG’s, the TOP-pro-gram, and the professional leagues. The regulators are no longer inside the system, but are now above the sys-tem, to act as an independent judicial power. The IOC and the OCOGs are the new central actors of the com-plete system in which the sponsors no longer have such an important position. Especially the international sponsor influence should decrease, the TOP-program should no longer consist of 12 partners, but should for example phase out towards 6 in three Olympic cy-cles, so a reduce of two sponsors every four-year cycle.

51

6. Olympic transition

tion of most important event for athletes. Additional advan-tages of measurements like these are the increased possible spread of sports through venues in the region and thereby the decreased concentrated investments in the host city. So, it can improve the long-term legacy for the region of country instead of only the city.

6.3 The Olympic proceduresAs stated in the introduction of this chapter, the Olympic Games nowadays do not fit in a planning model (Essex & Chalkley, 2005). As a cause of this characterization, the plu-ralistic governance landscape in which the IOC, the Olympic Movement, and the bigger Olympic system take part of do not correspondent with the current society worldwide. As described in chapter 1, in the 19th century, the IOC was the central state in the Olympic system and was able to rule the system. Through decades, the Olympic Games evolved and the governance landscape became complex and pluralistic. Nowadays, this structure still exists and got its influence on the planning system of the Olympic Games. The IOC is the main stakeholder for three reasons.

First, the IOC has the institutional power and tools to influ-ence the host city planning process. Due to the strict deadline and 7 years of preparation, the IOC has an influence on the planning process of the host city. Due to lack of time, pub-lic participation is minimized. This is similar in the design of a long-term vision for post-event use, the time to consult stakeholders, other interests are limited, and so a top-down technical planning process is the easiest option. The IOC tries to cover the long-term aspect since the 2004 Olympic Charter by promoting a positive legacy (Bovy, 2004; Kas-sens-Noor, 2012), even though in chapter 4 became clear that this does not get a follow up in the appreciation of the can-didates. In planning theory is discovered that complex plan-ning issues can better be solved with a longer initial period and an outside-inward, actor-relational approach in which different stakeholders can bring in their interests (Boelens, 2010 & Innes & Booher, 2004). This different approach of coping with planning issues will improve the robustness and flexibility of the plans because not everything is defined in

strict rules. Due to the short initial period, it is more like a blueprint, designed by a limited group to stay within time.

Second, the IOC vision reflects on the vision for the city. Cities who want to host the Olympics and do a serious at-tempt, ensure that they comply with the requirements, this is a Golden Rule in being successful. The IOC vision regard-ing the transport system is that through clustering, the travel distance can be reduced. In order to achieve this vision, the IOC has set a requirement for a maximum travel time of 45 minutes for athletes and the Olympic Family. According to Bovy (2004): the shorter the travel time, the better the bid. This concentration reflects on an enormous clustering of fa-cilities in one (part of the) city, in which the legacy aspect, the post-event use is of inferior interest. Thus, due to the vi-sion of travel distances of the IOC, the host city is stuck with the spatial design, which is useless for the city. The few cities that can adjust this in the daily usage are mega-cities with an inner-city derelict area, like East London.

Third, the interest of the IOC becomes visible in the weight-ing of the W-Report, it is in a post-modernistic sense good to question, but looking from a transitional perspective, not the right questions are asked. For London 2012 broadly 25% of the costs are for hosting 3 weeks of sport, and the oth-er 75% for developing East-London. This is endorsed by the fact that the 2008 and 2012 candidature manuals identify three types of facilities, which was financial supported by the IOC: the competition facilities; the Olympic Village; and the Main Press Centre (MPC) and International Broadcast Centre (IBC). All other facilities were outside the Organizing Committee’s budget (Pitts & Liao, 2009). This suggests a real one-sided interest for short-term wins of hosting the Perfect Games, no matter what the city will suffer. This reflects a real technocratic way of acting: every edition and every candidate is reviewed on the basis of a standardized procedure; for the IOC it is a blueprint that repeats every four-year. The contex-tual differences between cities are neglected. The Barcelona Model is still an ideal model for the IOC. Rio is trying to copy the Barcelona Model without the crucial aspect of a stra-tegic vision for urban development (Kassens-Noor, 2012).

52

Part III: Analysis

In the selection procedure, a host city is not just chosen for the quality of the bid, more interests play a part. On the one hand, it is driven by the commercial interests and the discov-ery of new markets to spread the Olympism (Sochi 2014, Rio de Janeiro 2016, Pyeongchang 2018), but on the other hand the safe and ‘easy’ choice is played (London 2012, Tokyo 2020) and the IOC just receive the money. The struggle be-tween the commercial interests and the sportive interests is clear, the growing complexity and the surrounding develop-ments are difficult to manage. The discussion on gay-rights in Russia, the protests on pacification of the favelas in Rio de Janeiro are not beloved by the IOC. Another example: Coca Cola is one of the sponsors in the TOP-program. When the Games are hosted in Asia or South America it is much more attractive for Coca Cola; they have a small market share and wants to improve that by means of the Olympics. In con-tinuing this process, the IOC walks away from the growing complexity of considering the various interests, something already happens since the end of the 1990s. The decisions are made beyond the control of the IOC (Horne & Whannel, 2012); the commercial interests are leading (interview Jurryt van de Vooren). The difficulty with the commercial interest, and thereby the complexity, is that it not will disappear by walking away from it, it will grow further, so the best solution is to cope with and adapt to it.

To cope with the complexity of the worldwide society, the Olympic Movement should make a transition, which should start by the IOC, which allows external visions to change it-self towards a sustainable design. The complete process and model should respond to, as i.e. Gert de Roo (2010) called it a Class IV system in chapter 3. Holistic, sustainable and adaptive Olympic planning at the urban level can play from this aspect a significant role in helping host cities to achieve broader and more lasting benefits (Pitts & Liao, 2009: 29). See also Agha et al (2010) & Cox (2012).The Olympics can transform quickly by the fact that bidding cities are more ambitious than strict required. This is also what is happening now with, for example, the maximum travel distances: bidding cities try to stay under 30 minutes because this improves the bid. This mechanism can also be

used by sustainability objectives. The enormous scale of the Olympics and the worldwide attention can be used as a tool to promote a sustainable objective. Also through the set-up of requirements on sustainability and legacy, next to the sport-aspect, the holistic and adaptive approach gets into the picture.

In chapter 1, the characteristics of the IOC are sketched. This paragraph will give a suggestion for a transition agenda for the next decade on how to change the IOC and can contrib-ute to a sustainable societal transition. A big step may be tak-en in the next four years: the selection moment for the 2024 Olympics. It looks impossible to achieve a complete transi-tion in those four years, but a first big step can be made.

The next four yearsIt will be impossible to change everything in one day, so this paragraph will start with a first step in the next four year. The next paragraph continues with more radical changes for the period after these four years. To start with the highest body: the Session, a transition is needed through the secret ballots in which every decision is made; transparency and democracy are key concepts in a more sustainable design and important for public support and the accountability of the decisions. To become more transparent, the decisions must be made public as a first step, the next step have to be made in the following years, but with this, the transparen-cy and responsibility comes on the strategic agenda. Simi-lar to this discussion is the representation point. Why is an IOC-member only a representative of the IOC in their home country and not a local representative in the IOC? The aim of this measure is not to only get local problems in the IOC meetings, but to put the IOC more into the society of the athletes, and not to rule from out of the ivory tower; this is the first step towards accountability. Why would they not de-cide which candidate becomes the new IOC member on ba-sis of one vote per NOC? Why would they not let have every NOC a candidate for the IOC? Nowadays this happens with consultation of the old, withdrawing member. Why is only the Athletes-commission a democratic voting? As stated in chapter 1: 48% of the IOC members are above 65, 69% above

53

6. Olympic transition

60. So only 31% is below 60, with an 81% sex distribution of men. This is absolutely not an equal distribution of the worldwide population. A first step here is to lower the maxi-mum age from 70 to 65 and promote the selection of women. As stated by Leopkey & Parent (2012a) in chapter 4: legacy governance is needed. The responsibility for the long-term development, so the legacy, is not good covered nowadays. A first step can be a modification in the already existing OGI program. In the current situation, this starts five years in pri-or to the Games and finishes two years after the Games. This is way too short to analyze a real legacy and learn from it for future host cities (Interview Willem de Boer, 2013). So, the suggestion would be, stretch this period towards five year after the Games. For example, the OGI program for London stops in 2015, but the Olympic Park will get its destination in 2016, so it is impossible to say something about the legacy.

The longer futureAlso on the longer future, after the next four years, are there some changes necessary. To start again with the Session, the annual meetings with the votes are made public after-wards, but to make it real transparent, the meetings needs to be streamed through the whole world by the IOC and the Broadcasting company of the Olympic Movement. Every Session is transparent and a first step can be taken by making IOC-member responsible for their behavior. Do they vote for a certain candidate because of the good quality of the bid and the good long-term perspective for the host city; or do they vote because of the good weather during the Games, and good education opportunities for their (grand) children? The last one happened a lot during the 1990s, now with the Ethics Commission this should not happen anymore, but nobody is able to check it and nobody has to take respon-sibility for the votes towards a certain candidate. Eventual-ly, the IOC-members can be evaluated before a re-election if they voted just their own interest, or is there a line in it. This is peerless in a time where everything is visible, where phones are tapped and where citizens ask for the truth. And the IOC still votes according to the rule from 1896 with an Ethics Commission to prevent corruption. Transparency is a key in here, to achieve support in democratic countries and

to prevent wrong decisions.In the selection of new member, a long-term vision is the selection on basis of one vote per NOC and also to set a term for the IOC-membership. For example by two terms of 6 years, with at the end a term of 4 year. The knowledge will not drain from the members, but the member will not keep their position till they die. With addressing the member se-lection procedure, it can also help in the straightening of the geographical distribution and the relatively large amount of aristocratic members.By decreasing the amount of big, international sponsors, it will help to cope with the extreme commercialization. Small-er, local and national companies can sponsor the Games by getting new customers, which only have an interest in the Games in their city and in the development of their city. They do not have any interest in the voting for other Olympics so it will help to decrease the corruption. The local interest will become more important, because there are no commercial expressions inside the venues the global television spectators will not miss the global firms; and it will support the human scale. The results of such an intervention are unknown, but after a first step can be evaluated of it gives desired results.According to the legacy governance is a stretching towards five years is good first step, but to see some real legacies, five year is not enough. For example: the Amsterdam 1928 Olym-pic Stadium is still in use; the Barcelona legacy nowadays is well known, but the bachelor thesis by the author (2010) showed that not everything was that good as the story was told. To real learn from the legacies of earlier Olympics, the OGI program should last much longer. The program as it is right now, with a report every two years should be 10 years, after those 10 years, the city can for example present a re-port every 5 or 8 years in order to keep learning for the past. Otherwise every city continues to reinvent the wheel. Also important for the legacy is the concentration of the Games. Why keep the Games within one city? Due to growing im-pact a relatively limited number of cities that can host the Olympics in the future. In itself that is not a problem, but the size of the city and the amount of money needed results in sometimes-dubious cities. Take for example: hosting the Winter Games in a subtropical city like Sochi of hosting the

54

Part III: Analysis

World cup football in the summer in a desert of Qatar. There comes by that these city or countries not acting like the west-ern norms and values, and the current Olympism values. The question here is of the values needs to be changed, or of the trend towards countries with different human rights, environmental norms and other constitutional powers is a desired one. This question goes beyond the scope of the re-search, but a discussion is desired.

6.4 Towards a future visionA long-term sustainability vision is a major aspect in the transition towards a long-term focused planning strategy and vision. Spatial aspects are important in this respect, once a place is build with a Olympic Village, new transport connec-tion or an Olympic Stadium, it is hard to change the urban lay-out and the structure of the networks (HCA, 2000). The IOC wants to have a strong concentration of the Games. For some cities this concentration is a good solution. For cities in which the spatial structure is good organized it is a good op-tion to concentrate all the activities in one area. A city, which wants to promote and improve more areas, it is useful to spread the venues and investments through different parts of the city, just like Barcelona and Rio de Janeiro (Pitts & Liao, 2009). The trend of the last Olympiads is a concentration of more than 80% of all the venues on a walking distance of maximum 5-8 kilometers with transport links from differ-ent directions. Due to the concentration, an opportunity for ‘white elephants’ can be created. Five or more stadia on one spot are hard to exploit after without a long-term vision, Bei-jing 2008 and Athens 2004 are famous examples. This short-term focus on the use of venues is something that should to be changed by a transitional way. Olympic sports can be flex-ible according to the host country. As a suggestion, there can be some core sports of the Olympics, which are mandatory during every Games, but why playing basketball in London 2012 if it is a really small sport in England? Why invest a lot of money in infrastructure that is only used for three weeks when there is no opportunity to use the stadium on the long-term. Interaction between different levels (regime, niche, exper-iment) is essential: the spatial concentration of the invest-

ments; which sports are local practiced; and the local goals of hosting the Games are important questions for this tran-sition. Through interaction between these levels can a con-text specific and adaptive approach be designed. A general solution is no longer good enough, but a holistic approach, context specific will help a lot. By changing this, it helps host cities to deliver all the facilities on time because there are much more facilities which can be used during the Games.

Rio de Janeiro is one of the examples in which a plan is not used. The last strategic plan is from 1995 and visioned a city without an Olympic bid; and that while the first bid was for the 2004 Olympics where Rio did not reached the candidacy status; this was in 1997. The goal of this plan was to make Rio a globalized city (Kassens-Noor, 2012). Rio did this by hosting mega events like the Pan-American Games (2007), Confederations Cup (2013) and will host this year the FIFA World Cup (2014). When started winning those bids, the 1995 strategic plan was almost completed and the new goal was the desire of fast globalization (Maricato, 2002). Rio fo-cused on the development of high value real estate proper-ties at the expense of the poor people (Pires, 2010). By the time of 2009, the strategic plan was updated by a stronger focus on globalization, this was announced a couple of days after the selection of Rio for the 2016 Games. Officially, the strategic plan was released in December 2010, in which the Olympic requirements and needs were arranged (Pires, 2010 & Kassens-Noor, 2012). This process reflects the observation of Essex & Chalkley (2002) that a mismatch exists regularly between the long-term vision for the city and the interest of the Olympic Movement of hosting the Perfect Games. By the absence of a long-term vision, the host city cannot defend their long-term goals and can thereby be used to carry out the goals of the IOC. Interaction between different levels would be desired to come to an agreed goal for that specific Olympic Games which helps the city and the Olympic Move-ment. Hosting the Olympic became a goal in itself, mostly to promote tourism and showing the world the greatness of the city or country. The post-use period is mostly forgotten because it is on a too long term. But achieving the goals can only be truth when a vision is behind it and when there is an

55

6. Olympic transition

idea behind it.

So, a flexible long-term vision is a key characteristic of using the Olympic Games to develop a city. Interaction between the different levels of the multi-level concept is important in achieving a sustainable en robust use on the long-term.

6.5 ConclusionIf the IOC wants to become a governmental body that fulfill-ing it’s promises as stated in the Charter, the IOC should do something about the mismatch of the spatial impact of the Olympics and the underestimation of this impact based on the requirements. The IOC neglects the influence they have on the spatial impact (Essex & Chalkley 2005; Kassens-Noor, 2012). There should be a content discussion about the spatial concentration of the Games. Do the Games not grow beyond the scope of one city; is a region or a country not a better applicable scale for the Olympics?In order to change something in this policy, a fundamental transition should be required. The structure of the Olympic system should be updated according to the current power relation and interests inside the Olympic Movement and the surrounding Olympic system (see figure 14). This will be the first step together with a critical reflection on the pro-cedures. There are some aspects, which can be improved to cope with the spatial impact and the sustainability and legacy questions. Important to mention is that these suggestions are no blueprint for change, this is impossible through a lack of knowledge of the closes system and should not be done from the outside. Hereby, the sub question can be answered:Could the Olympic Movement contribute to a sustainable society?A transition should look like a holistic, adaptive and partic-ipative process in which the important stakeholders partic-ipate. These are the stakeholders who have a real interest in the continued existence of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. The IOC, NOCs, athletes and sport feder-ation have that interest, and should also be able to sketch an updated role for the sponsors because they need the spon-sors in the funding. The structure should be changed from a centrally planned governance model towards a hybrid model

in which local aspects plays a real role. Through the char-acteristics of a four-years cycle and using the advantages of adaptive learning can the Games make the transition rela-tively quick. The IOC can decide what the requirements will be for the next Olympics and can thereby enforce big steps. By this development could the Olympic Movement make a contribution in a transitional change towards a sustainable society. The Olympic Games can develop towards a great ex-periment. It is a continues process of learning and experi-menting through the different contexts in spatial and policy perspective and through the four-years cycle can it become a real interactive and learning experiment for the Olympic Movement and the world.The consequences will be that there changes a lot every four year and that the learning aspect is becoming essential, this is one of the core aspects of achieving a transition. Through the use of niche experiments on certain aspects of the Games the theory of doing-by-learning and learning-by-doing can be put into practice. Some of the changes can lead to undesired developments, but with a robust, flexible and interactive structure should the Olympic Movement be able to resolve this and in the end become a part of transition towards a more sustainable society in which the long-term aspect is of bigger importance.So, to conclude, a change in the structure and the spatial impact and legacy can guide the Olympic Games towards the new era as reviewed in figure 1. The main problem on the spatial aspect is the absence of the planning model for the Olympics (Essex & Chalkley, 2005) by which long-term development does not play a substantial role in host selec-tion and planning process. Through the development of the Olympics as sketched in chapter 1, the Olympics grow bigger without support of the procedures and the structure of the IOC. This is already for more than 10 years a problem, with-out a big change. In order to transform the Olympics for the next decades, this change is required.

Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

59

7. London 2012

7. London 2012After failed bids of Birmingham (1992) and Manchester (1996 & 2000), London was seen as the only option for hosting the Olympics again after 1908 and 1948 (Horne & Whannel, 2012). The focus came on the eastern part of London, which was hard-hit by the decline of dock and man-ufacturing industries in the 1980s. After de development of Canary Wharf, this was the chance to develop another part of East London.

7.1 Introduction

The area in which London hosted the Olympics is called the Lower Lea Valley (see figure 15). It runs along the banks of the River Lea and starts north of Stratford and runs over in the Thames below Canning Town. The area spans four boroughs (Brown et al, 2012). These boroughs are in most deprived 10% of districts of England (EDAW, 2005). From the City of London towards Canning Town, along the Jubi-lee Line, every two stops represents on average one year of shortened lifespan (London Health Observatory, 2008).An important aspect for political support for the mayor of London was the connection with the strategic spatial ambi-tion of the London Plan 2004 (Brown et al, 2012). In this vi-sion document from the Mayor of London (2004) is already stated that East London is a national priority area for regen-eration (MoL, 2004: 241).The focus of the bid was on two main themes: legacy and sustainability (Cox, 2012). London was the first in which the sustainability part was more than just air and water quali-ty and climate. London formulated four ambitions (London 2012, 2005b: 65):• Enhancing the delivery of the Games through environ-

mental excellence;• Regenerating East London communities and their en-

vironment;• Embedding sustainability in all planning and imple-

mentation;• Demonstrating sustainable solutions for global prob-

lems.To enforce that, there was a project started in cooperation

with the WWF and Bioregional Development Group called ‘Towards one planet Olympics’ (London 2012 et al., 2005). This was further translated into four priorities: low carbon Games; a zero waste Games; conserving biodiversity; and promoting environmental awareness and partnerships (Lon-don 2012, 2005b).The complete Games procedure can according to Cashman (2002) be split up in four phases: the phase till winning the bid (§ 8.1); the phase from winning the bid until the start of the Games (§ 8.2); during the Olympic and Paralympic Games (§ 8.3); and the phase after the Games, the long-term (§ 8.4), these phases will be used in this chapter.

7.2 Preparations of the 2012 GamesFrom 2003 onwards, the London bid was prepared together with the consulting engineers of ARUP and the London De-velopment Agency (LDA). The costs for hosting the Games were at that time projected around £2.375 billion.According to the London Plan (2004) are the Olympic Games a “major catalyst for change and regeneration in East London, especially the Lower Lea Valley…leaving a legacy to be valued by future generations” (MoL, 2004: 139). On the same level: “staging the Olympic Games in the Lea Valley will stimulate a vital economic regeneration program in London’s poorest and most disadvantaged area” (London 2012, 2005: 23).In supporting the bid, the LDA designed a Lower Lea Valley Masterplan (LLV) with two options: A, including the Olym-pics; and B, without the Olympics. The London Plan 2004 and the LLV Masterplan covered the long-term vision and the Olympics can be used as a mean to reach a goal. An im-portant risk was the forecasted and usual planning delay; this

60

Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0

could be a problem in the delivery of the Olympics. These planning decisions were already made in 2004 and new ar-rangements were added after de selection of London (LDA, 2004). This is something very important: preparing and taking the decision for a specific area before the Olympics are rewarded towards the city. After the selection, the seven years of preparation time can be somewhat short.

On 6 July 2005, the decision on the host city of the 2012 Olympic Games was made. In the fourth round, London de-feated Paris by 54 to 50 votes. The delivery was split-up in the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the London Or-ganizing Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games

(LOCOG). The ODA was responsible for transport and plan-ning decisions; and LOCOG was a private company joint-ed by the British Olympic Association (BOA), the Mayor of London (MoL) and the UK Government. The LDA keeps its task in the development, planning and land assembly and remediation. The Olympic Board together coordinates this all (Brown et al, 2012). In early 2006, the ODA and LOCOG were created and both organizations moved into a shared office. This was important for the personal relationships, despite the sometimes-conflicting interest and duties. Right after became clear that the budget was not sufficient, so the budget need to be revised. This became public in June 2007 a budget upsurge from £2.375 billion towards £9.3 billion, here

Figure 15: The Lower Lea Valley in the context of (East) London (GLA & LDA, 2007).

61

7. London 2012

also came by the high rise of security costs. Although it is ad-justment which 3,9 times higher then projected. Reason for this is the underestimation of the public investments thanks to optimistic financial estimations; underestimation of the complexity of the Games; oblivion of costs like FAT (House of Commons, 2008 & Poynter, 2009). This was excluded the land purchase of the Olympic Park and the administrative costs of the government (House of Commons, 2008 & House of Commons, 2013).One of the problems with the promises of the bid was the legacy planning. As explained in chapter 4, is there no straightforward definition, so London could explain legacy in the way that suits them best. There was no single voice for legacy or with accountability for operating the venues after the Games. In order to obtain a solution for this, the Olym-pic Park Legacy Company (OPLC) was incorporated in May 2009. This was in February 2012 transformed towards the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC). From the beginning of the legacy plans, it was focused on urban regeneration to develop a park and 4300 housing units from the Olympic Village. A major part of the stadium was only temporary build, except the Olympic Stadium, Velodrome and swimming pool. Through the financial crisis in 2008, the original plan of building for 50% ‘affordable’ housing failed. Also the stadium faced some problems. In the bid is stated that the Olympic stadium will get a reduced capacity: 80.000 seats during the Games, 25.000 after. Thereby it will host the 2017 World Athletics Championships. But in the period of the take over plans for the stadium, two football clubs (West Ham United and Tottenham Hotspur) were interested in the stadium after the Games. After a lot of discussion, also in court will it now be reduced to 50.000 for West Ham United with the athletics track (Thornley, 2012). In the building pro-cess, there is not taken into account the possibility to reduce the capacity to 50.000, only to 25.000; and to create a real English football atmosphere (Interview Herbert Wolff). Al-though the good intentions of planning a legacy, the reality is stubborn and there were in the planning procedures not taken into account the possibility of adapting the stadium towards a football stadium. This lack of flexibility and adapt-ability to the reality are difficult and may cost more money

in the beginning. But this flexibility and adaptability saves money in the end, and makes the long-term suitability be-comes greater. What the real legacy of the Olympic Park will be is unclear until 2017, five years after the Games, when the Park is complete open and the housing developments are fin-ished.

In January 2007, the Mayor of London, LOCOG, ODA and the UK Government established the Commission for Sus-tainable London 2012 (CSL) to cover the comprehensive sustainability aspect of the Games (Brown et al., 2012).The Sustainable Development Strategy (ODA, 2007) states that the ODA will implement the five sustainability themes during the preparations. Goal of this strategy was to promote the UK industry for sustainable solutions. Some targets here are: in the build environment, a reduction in carbon emis-sions of 50% in 2013 compared to 2005; or at least 20% of the value of constructed materials will be reused recycled. The Government legacy promise was: “to make the Olympic Park a blueprint for sustainable living” (London 2012, 2009:9). This promise was divided in five priority themes (London 2012, 2009):• Climate change: focusing on energy and water resource

management, infrastructure, local food production and carbon footprint;

• Waste: provide a new waste management system mini-mized at the source;

• Biodiversity: improve the ecology of the Lower Lea Val-ley and bring people closer to the nature;

• Inclusion: promoting access and celebrating diversity;• Healthy living: inspire people to develop an active

healthy and sustainable lifestyle.

In this plan, the Olympic Games are mentioned in two ways: first as provider for sport facilities and second as “an ex-treme important stimulus to the regeneration of the Lee Val-ley” (GLA, 2004: 267). So, a long-term vision is underlying the Olympic bid phase in which the urban development plays a major role. The Olympics seen from spatial develop-ment perspective are not the end, but the means to develop East-London. The horizon of the vision is 2016, and thereby

62

Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0

extends beyond the Olympic procedure. London 2012 is an enlightening example of hosting the Games with a plan. For this plan, the London Development Company is created in 2009. During the whole process, the ecological aspect, the past characteristics of the area are important. The historical course of a river, the historical parceling and energy land-scapes are aspects to take into account.

7.3 During the Olympic and Paralym-pic GamesFor the athletes and public were the Games a wonderful ex-perience with a lot of good memories and without big ac-cidents. Although from a professional perspective there is a lot more. Here are some highlights from professional expe-riences.The ambition during the Games was to transport all the Olympic related people on a sustainable way. In order to do this, the focus was put into public transport, cycling and walking (Earnshaw & Ramsden, 2012). Through the short distances in the Olympic Park, walking was a good option, and for the longer journeys, public transport worked well. But, the cycling ambition did not work that well. The lack of biking paths and rent possibilities did not help in here. Also the legacy aspect of London as cycling-city could be done better (Interview Herbert Wolff & CSL, 2012). In the deci-sion-making process, the accessibility by public transport was one of the key criteria. During the Games, the carbon footprint of travel journeys related to the Games got a 30% reduction compared to a ‘no plan’ scenario (Earnshaw & Ramsden, 2012). The Commission for Sustainability London 2012 (CSL) monitored and evaluated the objectives and targets set by LOCOG. The general conclusion of the CSL was positive. Besides, there were some points of attention, in a way which future OCOG’s can learn from it. In the food services, there were targets in diversity, quality and prices of the food. These targets were implemented in official venues and live sites, but not in local authority sites like Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square (CSL, 2012). So, a point of attention is not only at-tending official venues, partners and suppliers, but also try to

incorporate live sites, media partners which are no partner; interaction between different businesses is essential reach the ambition. For the visitors there is no difference between an official live site and an unofficial live site. London made a big step in the integration of waste, materials, food and pack-aging policies. This holistic system approach represents a strong connection and interaction between different aspects of waste treatment. Information and awareness for visitors is major point of improvement. In 2011, CSL discovered there was no energy conservation plan; so this was setup and finished in May 2012. The target was set on a reduction of 20% of energy use on the Olympic Park and 20% of the energy from local renewable sources. By an earlier start, more could be achieved. For the imple-mentation of the plan it was hard to get al the volunteers and workers to do the lights off during the day for example (CSL, 2012). The use of fuels was for 90% on fossil basis, just 10% was alternative. As earlier mentioned, the cycling targets were not met, but the public transport for all spectators was seen as a risk, but there were no problems at all. One of the general points of critiques was the high price of the tickets and the availability for the people from the UK. Especially people from East London, who were paying through taxes for the Games but were not able to see it (GLA, 2013 & Hover et al., 2013).Besides these points of interest and some points of intention, it were good organized Olympic Games without a specific sustainability or legacy focus for the general spectator.

7.4 The long-termOn September 9, 2012 the Paralympic Games Closing Cer-emony was done and so, from October 2012 the LLDC gets the responsibility for the Olympic Park. This date also marked the start of the period after the London 2012 Olym-pic Games, and thereby the start of the long-term destination. This long-term legacy is not clear by now, but 18 months af-ter the Games there were some developments en lessons can be learned already.

The sustainability ambitions for the energy efficient venues, re-use of construction materials and separating waste were

63

7. London 2012

majorly achieved (LOCOG, 2012 & Hover et al., 2013). This is endorsed by two awards: London 2012 became the gold winner in the category of ‘Environment & Sustainability of the International Sports Event Management Award and the Sustainability Leaders Award’ (LOCOG, 2012). Next to that, the British norm for sustainable events was first obtained by London 2012 and is after the Games translated towards an International ISO norm. The head of the sustainability ambi-tion of London was also one of the advisors for the evaluation commission of the Tokyo 2020 Games (Interview Herbert Wolff). The cooperation of LOCOG and ODA was import-ant for permanent venues meet the legacy requirements. They rationalized operational needs during the Games and the and during the post-Games use. Understanding risks and cope with these helped implement the strategy (Aukett, 2012).

London’s ambition for a long lasting legacy is specified into four themes with sustainability and disabled people as con-stant factor (DCMS, 2010):• Sport: The goal was to stimulate sport and exercise from

out health and economic motives. The accent was on the participation of the youth (11-19 year). The prom-ise made in the Candidature File was: “The Games in London will inspire a new generation of youth to greater sporting activity (London 2012, 2005: 19).

• Economy: through the international attention could the success of the Games be widely reported. Also the UK as holiday destination, as business investment and to im-prove the international networks.

• Participation and cohesion: the creation of national co-hesion and participation under minority and disadvan-taged groups.

• East London: decrease of the social economic backlog was the main goal.

The UK Government also formulated a social and health am-bition. The ambition is that 70% of the population got 5x30 minutes moderate activity per week in 2020; the Olympics can help by achieving this (DCMS, 2002). In which way, by which implications the Olympics would help to achieve this ambition is not clear formulated (Coalter, 2012). In order

to spread the social, sports and economic benefits around the whole UK (NRG, 2010) the Nations and Regions Group (NRG) was founded. The spreading of the benefits was lim-ited, only some soccer matches were spread through the UK, the torch relay, pre-Games training camps and some extra businesses, but the rest focused purely on London (Hover et al., 2013).

With help of the London Plan 2004 the long-term develop-ment of East London was planned. According to the national status of the area, the flood risks of the Thames Gateway and Stratford as the connection with Europe is unlikely that there was nothing happened since 2004 (MoL, 2004). But, through the hosting of the Olympics, there was worldwide attention, from public, businesses, developers but also from politicians, so it is likely that the Olympics had an influence. What this influence exact is difficult to say, but the Barcelona Model may be applicable. The question remains what will we be the real Olympic legacy. The development of the Stratford sta-tion and the Westfield shopping mall (the largest of Europe: 300 shops, 70 restaurants, a cinema, a bowling center, three hotels and the largest casino of the UK) are next to the Olym-pic Park. What was the role of the Olympics in this develop-ment? And what will be the effects for the old, less luxurious shopping center on the other side of Stratford station? Some of the projects are still pending and are not evaluated, other projects are finished. The final OGI-report is scheduled for 2015, which will give a relevant view then. A fact is that one exact one-year after the Olympics the former Olympic sou-venir shops are still for rent. To draw any conclusions on this, more research is needed. The general tendency that becomes clear now is that the results are doubtful for the local lega-cy of London. (Conway, 2013; Wainwright, 2013; Interview Willem de Boer, 2013). The London Olympics do set a new standard for the sustainability aspect for the next Olympics; this can be useful for the future of the Olympic Movement.

7.5 ConclusionThe London Olympics did a great job from sustainable point of view. The Games were more sustainable then ever before and London was the first in making legacy plans three years

64

Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0

in prior to the Games. But the real legacy can be analyzed in a couple of years, and also without hosting the Games should there been some improvements made in East London. So the real legacy of the Olympic Games is hard to prove. What is the influence of the Olympics in physical activity of the citi-zens? What is the influence of the Games on pride in London and England? What is the exact influence of the Olympics on the development of East London? How many jobs are noe available through the Olympic Games? Also the long lasting improvements on sustainability aspects achieved during the Olympics will have a doubtful legacy. Is Mc Donalds more sustainable because of the Olympics? To answer these ques-tions is more research needed. The sub question for this re-search can be answered. ‘Is the transition started with the London Olympics?’ Yes, a first step is made. Sustainability and legacy are now more important in hosting the Olympics, people think about these concepts in hosting mega events and the IOC used the lessons of London in the next bidding round for 2020. So, the first step is made, but this step is majorly based on the efforts on London and LOCOG and it is doubtful what the next step will be. The signs for Rio 2016 are not that hopeful.

65

8. Future of the Olympic Movement

8. Future of the Olympic MovementAs introduced in chapter 1, the Olympic Movement will likely not work and survive (Theodora-ki, 2007) on the long-term how it is designed nowadays. The IOC hardly changed since 1896 and is still an ‘old gentlemen’s club’, with a lot of aristocratic influences, secret ballots and with a dubious degree of democracy, transparency and accountability. As described by the theory of Mintzberg (1993), organizations like the IOC are acting ‘on the edge of a cliff’ (see chapter 4).

Besides that, the Olympics are getting bigger and bigger, in which only megacities like London, Beijing and Tokyo can host the Games according to the current norms and require-ments. This list could stop in the near future and there won’t be an alternative because of the enormous scale of the Games (Gamesbid, 2013). Through the underestimation of sustain-ability and legacy through many host cities and the IOC are the short-term winnings more important than the long-term survival of the IOC, the Olympic Games and eventually the world. Besides that, the growing protests could develop towards a real problem: the torch relay of Beijing through Tibet, the gay rights in Russia, the pacification of the favela’s; these are aspects which put the IOC and the Olympism in a pejorative context (Interview Jurryt van de Vooren, 2013). The crises of the 80s and 90s in which the IOC by means of symptom treatment now come to a point that only by radical change can make the transition for the future to become sustainable and survivable for the long-term.This could results in the end of the Games in several options: • Cities won’t be able to host the Games because the

Games are too big on financial aspects or spatial impact, just like the bid of Rome 2020 (financial) Munich for 2022 (environmental/spatial);

• Cities that hosted the Games stuck with a negative lega-cy, which is so big, that other cities won’t host because of the unused investments.

• Through the negative taste after Sochi 2014 and may-be Rio de Janeiro 2016, the worldwide societies will de-mand for a shift in power in the Olympic system (inter-view Jurryt van de Vooren).

A possible way to get out are the oil states or dictatorial coun-tries where the money to invest is not a real issue, because of the power of the government and the idea to show their country to the world is more important. In order to sustain the Olympism and the ideals of the Olympic Movement it seems an undesirable situation for the Olympic Games as an event, the IOC as governance body, and the Olympic Move-ment as the owner of the Olympic ideals. Another possible route to survive is according to this re-search the desired option. Legacy and sustainability are aspects, which are good to combine in hosting the Games, which are embedded in a long-term vision for a city or coun-try. This transition will cost the IOC a lot of effort and their only goal and interest in the current system is organizing the Olympic Games every four years. This suggests a change of the Olympic Movement and IOC, which is able to cope with the complexity and interaction between different levels of the Olympic structure.

Changing this can solve some existing or developing ques-tions. Hosting the three-weeks event cost in the current sys-tem $2,5 billion, but the investments in the infrastructure and venues vary. This depends on the status of the transport system, how much existing venues can be used, how many hotel beds are available and how much work needs to be done for the site preparation. For example, the Sydney 2000 Olympics cost $4,5 billion, but the Beijing 2008 Olympic cost about $40 billion. The London 2012 Olympics cost $9 billion, and the rising costs during the process phase in prior to the Games caused by investments, not in organizing the Games itself (Coleman, 2013). A major part of these investments is

66

Part IV: Olympic Games 3.0

done for the huge tourist amounts: for transportation, the stadiums, hotels etc. But why all these investments, while the Olympic Games are first stance a television event? Or why not hosting less sports, different sports with less invest-ments/impact or a spread in time, not 3 weeks but 3 months? A choice or a strategic combination should be required here; otherwise it keeps going the same way. As a result, the Games stay at one place in a limited time period and so keep their impact on the urban development of the city, or one city is the host but board out some sports which are not relevant in the host city, or the Games are getting hosted around the world connected with data connections to achieve the feeling of one event. If the first option is decided by the main stakeholder to be de-sired, a holistic vision for the sustainability, legacy and urban development strategy is required. In this scenario is it about the separated concepts of sustainability, legacy and urban development, a much more holistic and comprehensive ap-proach is required, all in one general vision for the long-term aspects of the Olympics. The current Olympics are based on a short-term maximization of revenues in which the TOP sponsors are more important than the local businesses. An exception here is London that incorporated sustainability with planning and building around the ‘One Planet Living’ concept. But provisionally, this remains the exception. In the plans for Rio 2016, the One Planet Living is not mentioned. The notion of a circulair-based system should become more important. Today, there is not that much academic knowl-edge about, it is expected that this concept will cover both sustainability and legacy in the future. The version in between will keep the concentration in one host city or region with advantages of developing the city with the Olympics as a means, but some sports, like basket-ball in London, can be hosted in a other country because of the popularity and infrastructure for that specific sport.If the worldwide version is required, the Olympics shall de-velop more towards an enormous media event in which not only television has a role, but also the various future services which go beyond YouTube and live streams. There are no sta-diums required in one city because every sport will be hosted in a different city or even country. New stadiums are not nec-

essary, only a good and fast internet connection and every-body can watch the Olympic Games on their home screen, favorite bar or local stadium with for example holograms.

In general, independent of the scenario’s, sustainability is an aspect that suggested by this research should become more important. The IOC should take their position in this and for example increase the percentage of renewable energy ev-ery four-year cycle. With an increase of 25% per cycle big steps can be taken. This could be the same for newly build permanent venues and other facilities. If they have a desti-nation after the Games, the risk on ‘white elephants’ is small-er. A creative solution for ownership for the stadiums can be one of the possibilities. Why can the Olympic Movement rent certain facilities? Every four years, a city has to deal with stadiums for just three weeks, if the Olympic Movement manages this, cities can rent this from the IOC. To develop a ‘Green Olympics’ label, the IOC can promote the reduction of emissions, carbon footprint, percentage of sustainable trans-port and sustainable housing of minority groups. This can be elaborated to a certain amount of parameters and this can be translated into a bronze, silver and gold ‘Green Olympics’-la-bel. Where gold is excellent, an improvement in every field, silver is a substantial improvement in 8 of 10 fields, bronze in 6 of 10. If it is less, it does not get the label of ‘Green Olym-pics’.

So the sub question: ‘What will happen if nothing changes?’ can be answered. It is possible that if nothing changes, the Olympic Games and thereby the IOC will come to an end. It almost happened before; there are some signs now that it probably could happen after Sochi and Rio. But with only two Olympics Games which are not that good for the future the Olympic Games and IOC will survive. Looking towards the 1970s, there were three or even four Olympics in which a lot negative things happened, also that were complete differ-ent times, but the Olympics are resilient enough to survive. But, if some unexpected things in Sochi or Rio happen and Tokyo has some problems with for example solving the nu-clear waste, this can be completely different. The structure of the IOC, but also the Olympics are ‘at the edge of the cliff’ as

67

8. Future of the Olympic Movement

Mintzberg (1993) stated, and with one unexpected accidents, much can change. This is, for now, a very negative scenar-io without any evidence or arguments, but it is just a sketch what could happen if many of things would go wrong.

Part V: Conclusions

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

71

9. Conclusions

9. ConclusionsThis research started with the question: ‘Should the Olympic Games change transitional to be an opportunity for a sustainable long-term urban development of the host city?’. In order to answer this question on an academic way, this question is divided in eight sub questions, which are answered in the preceding chapters. This will all be concluded here in this paragraph.

9.1 Conclusion

Looking to the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, the basic rule for the Olympic Movement reflects a progressive and holistic approach. They state a “philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind” (IOC, 2013:11). The goal of Olympism is “to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of human-kind” (IOC, 2013:11). These are aspects, which can be doubt-ed in the current structure and procedures and in order to achieve a sustainable long-term urban development there, a change is required. In chapter 1 and 4 is concluded that the Olympics do have an influence on the urban development of a city because of reaching the limit of the current design and the long lasting legacy. This is absolutely not fundamentally bad, but this is nowadays underestimated. Chapter 4 also de-scribed that according to the IOC, and the future host cities have a major interest in this. These stakeholders have an in-terest in the continued existence of the Olympics. In the first couple of chapters is described why a transitional change is desired: through symptom control, continues growing, the lack of interaction and the non-democratic characteristics of the Olympics is a transitional change suggested as the first option. Looking towards the multiphase model (figure 6) and the phase of transition are the Olympics between the predevelopment and take-off phase. A radical shift may sup-port to achieve a sustainable and long-term focus Olympic Movement. The transition theory can be useful in here; it is not designed to achieve a transition for a body like the IOC, but more for a sector like the energy sector. It is probably not possible to use it directly for a transition towards a sustainable

Olympic Movement, but it is definitely useful. More research is needed and professionals should analyze the possibilities. A transition could look like it is sketched in the theory, a group of stakeholders with a real interest in the future of the Olympics, with a reflexive aspect as one of the core aspects. This holistic, adaptive and participative process should guide the Olympic Movement towards a governance model that is better equipped to respond to complexity, and together with the local stakeholders is it possible to cope with complexi-ty and achieve a flexible, robust, sustainable and democratic Olympic system for the future. In this process, London can be seen as a first step with their early vision of the long-term and the incorporation of the legacy and sustainability plans. If these changes are not made, it can result in the end of the Olympic system and thereby the Olympic Games.

9.2 RecommendationsThis research leads to a number of recommendations. These shall not be all embracing, and more research is needed for the more commercial and administrative aspects. The rec-ommendations of this research are:• Restructure the Olympic Movement with a focus on

wider interests and more representation from differ-ent countries. The IOC should host an open discussion around the aspects of sustainability and legacy and inte-grate this in a fundamental update of the Olympic Char-ter;

• Translate the results of this discussion to requirements and approaches in the different phases of the procedure and support the cities in achieving the long-term goals by means of the Olympic Games;

72

Part V: Conclusions

• Make a vision for the Green Olympics together with the main stakeholders for the coming 20 years and develop and learn from the experiments every two years;

• Create together with the stakeholders and former host cities an adaptive and reflexive learning approach on ba-sis of the cycles as presented in chapter 1.

• Turn around the OGI program with a longer time of re-flexive and learning period after the Games;

• Conect existing institutions (i.e. UN, UNEP, WWF) to create more body against the commercial interests, and create incentives with good examples.

9.3 ReflectionThis research tried to make a combination of the relatively new transition theory and the characteristics of the Olympic Movement and the Olympic Games. As far as I know is it the first research in which this combination is made, which was sometimes hard. Other researches do not link the Olympics on such a fundamental different theory. This made it difficult in using many researches as they try to reform the impact of the Olympics within the current structure. There are not many researches in which they combine between the struc-ture aspect and the long-term sustainability and sometimes purely spatial impact of legacy. This is from a planning per-spective rarely done. But there were also some researches that did this and those were very useful. By the difficulty as described above I experienced some hard aspects of the structure, the theory of for example Mintzberg is not educated to me, which made it hard. According to the Olympics, this research is based on west-ern norms and values and is therfore probably not useful for other cultures in which the Olympics also perform. This re-search tried to take other cultures into account but as I live in a west European culture, this difference is sometimes hard and the future of the Olympics is beyond the west European borders.On the basis of this research it will be very interesting to discuss with IOC-members or employers from the IOC on what is possible to achieve. This will be very enlightening because of the results of the research. Due to the perspec-tive of academic research and the lack of interaction with

people working along the IOC, it can be a one-sided story in some aspects. On the structure aspect of the IOC, more research is required because of the limited knowledge I have on that subject. On the spatial aspect further research is also required: what is practically feasible?

9.4 EpilogueThe preparations of this master thesis started already when I started the Master Environmental & Infrastructure Plan-ning. I had written my bachelor thesis about the Olympics and possible legacy of a public transport system in Amster-dam, and after that I kept active with Olympic activities in The Netherlands, I became member of the Vonken van 2028 (a young professional network group), I visited the London 2012 Games and followed the news reports and academic reports around the Olympics. Without a doubt, my master thesis would be about the Olympics. Gradually the master, the idea became bright, the future of the Olympics was some-thing I cared about, and the transition theory was interesting from that perspective. After designing a research proposal, the real research started. With an internship besides the the-sis at the local organizing committee of the European Cham-pionships Athletics in 2016 in Amsterdam I had a good com-bination of writing a thesis and doing some practical work.Writing the thesis went quite well. No big writers blocks, no huge delays on my schedule and no crashing computers. There were some struggles with a supervisor from the uni-versity, but this was all fixed. The largest struggle was to get in contact with some people who were useful for the research. At first, I tried to do an internship at the University of East London, but due to the staffing struggles was this not possi-ble. Also reaching people to interview them was sometimes hard. The people from the more Olympic perspective were cooperative and liked to help me, but the more theoretical people were harder. After lots of emails, telephone calls, face-to-face calls with some people this did not work. According to the internship in London was there a wonderful alternative of the Olympic Legacy Conference at the UEL. Three days of great presentations, talks and contacts with professionals on the legacy field from around the world. This provided much valuable information, thanks Gavin Poynter and Valerie Vie-

73

9. Conclusions

hoff for this. Also as regards to the interviews, thanks Her-bert, Jurryt, Thysia and Willem for your time and thanks to Janneke van der Horst for your help with the visual aspect of designing the updated structure of the Olympic system.

As regards the Dutch idea of hosting the Olympic Games of 2028, 100 years after the 1928 Amsterdam Olympics. In my opinion it’s a great idea, but on a number of conditions I have some advises. Do not focus on the 2028 alone, not for hosting the Games in 2028 and also not only on hosting the Olympics. Look beyond the Olympics, what goals can be achieved by hosting the Olympics. Do not let disturb the idea by the requirements of the IOC, maybe we will not be able to host the Olympics, but what is more important: hosting the Olympics, or developing the country? Be creative and try to talk with the IOC and try to be an experiment on how the Olympics could be hosted. With a good argued story in which not only the costs are part of the discussion, the Neth-erlands will support the bid and if we are able to host the Olympics it will The Barcelona Model of the 21st century.

Last, but not least I want to thank my supervisors Hotze Hof-stra and Christian Zuidema, and my father Henk Bretveld for supporting me.

75

Sources

Agha, N., Fairley, S. & Gibson, H. (2010) Considering legacy as multi-dimensional construct: the legacy of the Olympic Games. Sport management review, 15: 125-139.

Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.ANP Perssupport (2013) The Sochi Project een jaar voor Sochi 2014: boekpresentatie [Online] <http://perssupport.

nl/apssite/persberichten/full/2013/02/06/The+Sochi+Project+een+jaar+voor+Sotsji+2014+boekpresentatie> (consulted at December 17, 2013)

Aukett, A. (2012) Learning legacy. Lessons learned from staging the London 2012 Games. London: LOCOG.Avelino, F. (2007) Power in Transitions, working paper. Publications KSI-network.Avelino, F. & Rotmans, J. (2011) Power in transitions. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(4): 543-569.Barney, R., Wenn, S., & Martyn, S. (2002) Selling the five rings: The International Olympic Committee and the rise of

the Olympic commercialism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Batty, M (2005) Cities & Complexity: Understanding Cities through cellular automata, agent-based models and frac-

tals. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Biesbroek, G., Swart, R. & Knaap, W. van der (2009) The mitigation-adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial

planning. Habitat internationaI 33: 230-237.Boelens, L. (2010) Theorizing practice and practising theory: outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning.

Planning Theory, 9(1):28-62.Boonstra, B. & Boelens, L. (2011) Self-organization in urban development: towards a new perspective on spatial

planning, Urban Research & Practice, 4(2): 99-122.Bovy, P. (2004) Mega event transport planning and traffic management - 2004 [Online] <http://www.mobility-bovy.

ch/resources/28_CIES.bidding.05.pdf> (consulted ar December 15, 2013).Braudel, F. (1958) “Histoire et sciences sociales: La longue durée”, Annales 13: 725-753.Brown, R., Cox, G. & Owens, M. (2012) Bid, delivery, legacy - creating the governance architecture of the London

2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games legacy. Australian planner, 49(3): 226-238.Brugge, R. van der, Rotmans, J. & Loorbach, D. (2005) The Transition in Dutch water management. Regional Envi-

ronmental Change, 5(4): 164-176.Cantelon, H. & Letters, M. (2000) The making of the IOC environmental policy as the third dimensions of the

Olympic Movement. International review for the sociology of sport, 35(3): 294-308.Cashman (2002) Impact of the Games on Olympic host cities. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudies Olimpics (UAB).Cashman, R. (2006) The bitter-sweet awakening: The legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. Sydney: Walla Walla

Press.Chappelet, J. & Kübler-Mabbott, B. (2008) International Olympic Committee ad the Olympic system: the governance

of world sport. New York: Routledge.Chauhan, E. (2013) Bach: IOC needs new host city bidding process. SportBusiness, 16 September.

Sources

76

Coalter, F. (2004) London 2012: a sustainable sporting legacy?, in Vigor, A. & Mean, M. (2004) After the Goldrush: a sustainable Olympics for London. London: ippr and Demos.

Conway,R. (2013) London 2012: Lord report warns of faltering Olympic legacy [Online] <http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/24981550> (Consulted January 5, 2014)

Cox, G. (2012) Sustaining a legacy – from Sudney 2000’s environmental guidelines to the Commission for a Sus-tainable London 2012. Australian Planner, 49(3): 203-214.

Cymbalista, R. & Nakano, K. (2005) São Paulo, Brazil: a need for stronger policy advocacy. In: Balbo, M., ed. Inter-national migrants and the city, pp. 211-234. Venezia: IUAV.

DCMS (2002) Game Plan: a strategy for delivering Government’s sport and physical activity objectives. London: DCMS/Strategy unit.

DCMS (2010) Government Olympic executive. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Annual report Feb-ruary 2011. London: DCMS.

De Roo, G. & Porter, G. (2006) Fuzzy Planning – Introducing actor-consulting as a means to address fuzziness in planning and decision-making. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Dirven, J., Rotmans, J. & Verkaik, A. (2002) Samenleving in transitie, een vernieuwend gezichtspunt, Den Haag: InnovatieNetwerk groene Ruimte en Agrocluster.

Dryzek, J. (2005) The politics of earth: environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Earnshaw, N. & Ramsden, C. (2012) Learning legacy. Lessons learned from planning and staging the 2012 Games.

London LOCOG.ECFESD (2000) Sustainable Governance. European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Devel-

opment. Brussels: European Commission.EDAW (2005) Lower Lea Valley regeneration strategy: social infrastructure context paper. London: EDAW.Eenvandaag (2013) Poetins Spelen, interview Jurryt van de Vooren [Online] <http://perssupport.nl/apssite/pers-

berichten/full/2013/02/06/The+Sochi+Project+een+jaar+voor+Sotsji+2014+boekpresentatie> (broadcasted at November 23, 2013)

Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (1999) Olympic locations and legacies: a study in geography and tourism. Pacific tourism review, 3: 185-200.

Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (2002) The infrastructural legacy of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games - A comparative analysis. The legacy of the Olympic Games: 1984-2000. Lausanne: IOC.

Essex, S. & Chalkley, B. (2005) The Olympic Games: catalyst of urban change. Plymouth [Online] < http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/files/extranet/docs/SSB/eurolympicgames.pdf> (consulted at November 19, 2013)

Fingerhuth, C. (2004) Learning from China – the Tao of the city. Basel: Birkhäuser.Forrester, J. (1968) Principles of systems. Cambridge: Wright-Allen Press.Furrer, P. (2002), Sustainable Olympic Games: A dream or a reality? Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana,

12(4): 1-31.

77

Sources

Gamesbid (2013) IOC President wants changes [Online] <http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/other_news/121613 6768.html> (consulted at December 16, 2013)

Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. (2001) Path Dependance and Creation, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Geels, F. (2002) Understanding the dynamics of technological transitions: a co-evolutionary and socio-technical anal-

ysis. PhD-Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede.Geels, F. & Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3): 399-417.GEN (n.y.) GEN Global Ecovillage Network Europe: Home [Online] <http://gen-europe.org/home/index.htm>

(consulted at October 30, 2013)Gentelev, A. (2013) Putin's Games. (Broadcasted at IDFA Amsterdam)Gibson, O. (2013) MPs warn legacy of London 2012 volunteers is ‘fizzling out’. [Online] < http://www.theguardian.

com/uk/2013/apr/19/legacy-london-2012-fizzling-out> (consulted at December 9, 2013)Giddens, A. (1984) The Construction of Society: Outline of the theory of structuration, Berkeley: University of Cal-

ifornia Press.GLA (2004) Towards the London Plan. London: Greater London Authority.GLA & LDA (2007) Lower Lea Valley: opportunity area planning framework. London.Gold, J. & Gold, M. (2007) Olympic Cities: city agenda, planning and the world's games 1896-2012. New York: Rout-

ledgeGratton, C. & Preuss, H. (2008) Maximizing Olympic impacts by building up legacies. International journal of

history of sport, 25(14): 1922-1938.Graaf, H. van der & Hoppe, R. (1996) Beleid en politiek. Een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde.

Bussum: Coutinho.Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long-

term transformative change. New York, Routledge.Harvey, D. (1989) The urban experience. Blackwell, Oxford.HCA (2000) Urban design compendium, urban design principles. London: Homes & Communities Agency.Hiller, H. (1998) Assessing the impact of mega-events: a linkage model. Current issues in tourism, 1, 47-57.Horne, J. & Whannel, G. (2012) Understanding the Olympics. New York: Routledge.Horton, P. & Zakus, D. (2010) Sustainability of the International Olympic Movement. International Journal for the

History of Sport, 27(6): 2677-2709.House of Commons (2008) The budget for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Fourtheenth report of

session 2007-2008. London: House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts.House of Commons (2013) The London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games: post Games review. London:

House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts.Hover, P., Straatmeijer, J., Romijn, D. & Breedveld, K. (2013) The Story of London: maatschappelijke betekenis van

de Olympische en Paralympische Spelen 2012. Utrecht: Arko Sports Media/Mulier InstituutHughes, J. (2005) Global Environmental history: the long view. Globalizations 2(3): 293-308.

78

Innes, J. & Booher, D. (2000) Planning institutions in the network society: theory for collaborative planning. In: W. Salet and A. Faludi, eds. The revival of strategic spatial planning, 175–189. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

International Olympic Committee (1999) Olympic Movement’s Agenda 21: Sport for sustainable development. Lau-sanne.

International Olympic Committee (2003) Olympic Games study commission. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2004) 2012 Candidature procedure and questionnaire: Games of the XXX Olym-

piad in 2012. Lausanne: IOCInternational Olympic Committee (2011) Olympic Charter, in force from 8 July 2011. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2011b) Candidature Acceptance Procedure Games of the XXXVII Olympiad.

Lausanne.International Olympic Committee (2012) IOC marketing: Media guide. London 2012. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2012b) Factsheet London 2012 facts and figures. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2012c) Sustainability through sport. Implementing the Olympic Movement’s

agenda 21. Lausanne: IOCInternational Olympic Committee (2013) Olympic Charter, in force from 9 September 2013. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2013b) Olympic Games: legacies and impacts, Bibliography. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2013c) Olympic marketing fact file. Lausanne: IOC.International Olympic Committee (2013d) Olympism in action [Online] < http://www.olympic.org/olymp-

ism-in-action> (consulted at December 12, 2013)Jennings, A. (2000) The great Olympic swindle: When the world wanted its games back. London: Simon & Schuster.Jordan, A. (2008) The governance of sustainable development: tacking stocks and looking forwards. Environment

and planning C: government and policy, 26(1): 17-33.Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Asselt, H. van, Rayner, T. & Berkhout, F. (2009) Climate change policy in the European

Union: confronting the dilemmas of mitigation and adaptation? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Judge, D., Stoker, G. & Wolman, H. (1995) Theories of urban politics. London: Sage.Kant, I. (1996) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by W. Pluhar. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.Kassens-Noor, E. (2012) Planning Olympic legacies: transport dreams and urban realities. New York: Routledge.Kauffman, S. (1991) Antichaos and adaptation. Scientific American, 265(2): 78-84.Kemp, R., Loorbach, D. & Rotmans, J. (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evo-

lution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14: 1-15.

Klein, R., Nicholls, R. & Thomalla, F. (2003) Resilience to natural hazards: how useful is this concept. Environmen-tal hazards 5:35-45.

Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern Governance. Newbury Park: Sage.

79

Sources

Laughlin, R. (1991) Environmental Disturbance and organizational transitions and transformations: some alterna-tive models. Organizational Studies, 12: 209-232.

LDA (2004) Design statement precinct and legacy - context document for the Lower Lea Valley, Olympic and legacy applications. London: London Development Agency.

Lemos, M. & Agrawal, A. (2006) Environmental governance. Annual Review of environmental resources, 31: 297-325.

Leonardsen, D. (2007) Planning of mega events: Experiences and lessons. Planning theory & practice, 8(1):11-30.Leopkey, B. & Parent, M. (2012a) Olympic Games legacy: from general benefits to sustainable long-term legacy.

International journal of history of sport, 29(6): 924-943.Leopkey, B. & Parent, M. (2012b) The (neo) institutionalization of legacy and its sustainable governance within the

Olympic Movement. European sport management quarterly, 12(5): 437-455.LOCOG (2012) London 2012 post-Games sustainability report. A legacy of change. London: LOCOG.London 2012 (2005) London candidature file for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - volume 1, theme 1: con-

cept and legacy. London: London 2012.London 2012 (2005b) London candidature file for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games - volume 1, theme 5:

environment and meteorology. London: London 2012.London Health Observatory (2008) The jubilee line of health inequality 2004-2008. [Online] <http://www.lho.org.

uk/viewResource.aspx?id=15463> (consulted at December 19, 2013)Loorbach, D. (2007) Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: Inter-

national Books.Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based gov-

ernance framework. Governance, 23(1): 161-183.Maricato, E. (2002) Brasil, cidades - alternativas para a crise urbana. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.Mashable (2012) Why social media will reshape the 2012 Olympics. [Online] <http://mashable.com/2012/07/

08/2012-olympics-social-growth/> (consulted at December 20, 2013)Mayor of London (2004) Spatial development strategy for London: the London plan. London: Greater London Au-

thority.McLoughin, B. (1969) Urban and regional planning: a system approach. London: Faber & Faber.McLoughin, B. (1985) The systems approach to planning: a critique. Working paper. University of Hong Kong.Meadows, D, Meadows, I., Randers, J. & Behrens, W. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.Meier, K. & Toole, L. (2001) Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: a model with evidence from U.S.

public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3):271–294.Miah, A. & Garcia, B. (2012) The Olympics - the basics. Abingdon: Routledge.Mintzeberg, H. (1993) Structures in fives: designing effective organizations. Essex: Prentice-Hall.NOS (2013) NLE: leugens over groene stroom [Online] <http://nos.nl/artikel/506565-nle-leugens-over-groene-

stroom.html> (consulted at December 16, 2013).

80

NRG (2010) London 2012. Nations and Regions Group - report of reports. August 2009 - January 2010. London: NRG

O’Leary, Z. (2010) The essential guide to doing your research project. London: Sage. OECD (2002) Working together towards sustainable development. The OECD Experience, Paris.Olshoorn, X. & Wieczorak, A. (2006) Understanding industrial transformation: views form different discplines.

Dordrecht: Springer.Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007) Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water

resource management 21: 49-62.Pentifallo, C. & VanWynsberghe, R. (2012) Blame it on Rio: isomorphism, environmental protection and sustain-

ability in the Olympic Movement. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4(3): 427-446.Phelan, S. (1999) A note on the correspondence between complexity and systems theory. Systemic practice & action

research, 12(3): 237-246.Pires, H. (2010) Planjamento e intervencoes urbanisticas no Rio de Janeiro: a utopia do plano estrategio e sua in-

spiracao catala. [Online] <http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/b3w-895/b3w-895-13.htm> (consulted at December 15, 2013).

Pitts, A. & Liao, H. (2009) Sustainable Olympic design and urban development. New York: Routledge.Poynter, G. & MacRury, I. (2009) Olympic Cities: 2012 and teh remaking of London. Farnham: Ashgate.Preuss, H. (2007) FIFA World Cup 2006 and its legacy on tourism. In Conrady, R. & Buck, M. (Eds.), Trends and

issues in global tourism 2007, pp. 83-102. Berlin: Springer.Preuss, H. (2013) The contribution of the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games to Green Economy. Sustain-

ability, 5: 3581-3600.Rayner, G. (2012) London 2012: 100,000 volunteers sign up to Keep The Flame Alive. [Online] < http://www.tele-

graph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9473635/London-2012-100000-volunteers-sign-up-to-Keep-The-Flame-Alive.html> (consulted at December 9, 2013)

Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Bucking-ham: Open University Press.

Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1998) ‘Technological Change’, in S. Rayner & E. Malone (eds.), Human choice and climate change, 2: 327-399. Columbus: Batelle Press.

Rittel, H. (1972) On the planning crisis: systems analysis of the ‘first and second generations’. Bedriftsekonomen, 8:390-396.

Roo, G. de (2010) Being of becoming? That is the question! Confronting complexity with contemporary planning theory, in: G. de Roo & E. Silva, A planner’s encounter with complexity, pp19-40. Farnham: Ashgate.

Roo, G. de (2013) Course Planning Theory, class 7, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2013.Roo, G. de & Porter, G. (2007) Fuzzy Planning – The role of actors in an fuzzy governance environment. Aldershot:

Ashgate Publishers Ltd.Rotmans, J. (2003) Transitiemanagement: sleutel naar een duurzame samenleving. Assen: Van Gorcum Uitgeverij.

81

Sources

Rotmans, J. (2012) In het oog van de oorkaan: Nederland in transitie. Boxtel: AeneasRotmans, J. & Loorbach D. (2010) 'Towards a better understanding of transitions and their governance: systemic

and reflexive approach', Part II in Grin, J., Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010) Transition towards sustainable devel-opment, pp. 105-222. New York: Routledge.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & Asselt, M. Van, (2001) More evolution than revolution, transition management in public policy. The journal of future studies, strategic, thinking and policy, 3(1): 1-17.

Scotsman (2011) Scotland's'minimal' Olympic legacy revealed [Online] <http://www.scotsman.com/news/scot-land-s-minimal-olympic-legacy-revealed-1-1701114> (consulted at January 1, 2014)

SER (2001) Ontwerpadveis Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan 4, Den Haag: Sociaal Economische Raad.Speth. J. & Haas, P. (2006) Global Environmental Governance. Washington DC: Island Press.Te Boekhorst, D., Smits, M., Yu, X., Li, L., Lei, G. & Zhang, C. (2010) Implementing integrated river basin manage-

ment in China. Ecology and Society 15(2): 23-41.Theodoraki, E. (2007) Olympic event organization. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Thomson, A., Leopkey, B. Schlenker, K. & Schulenkorf, N. (2010) Sport event legacies implication for meaningful

outcomes. Leeds.Thornley, A. (2012) The London 2012 Olympics. What legacy? Journal of poliy research in tourism, leisure and

events, 4(2):206-210.UNEP (2009) Short documentary during the United Nations Environment Programme & European Environment

Agency. Copenhagen, 2009 [Online] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2rV_dKZPoc&feature=related> (consulted ar October 30, 2013)

VROM (2001) Nationaal milieubeleidsplan: een wereld en een wil, Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu.

Wainwright, O. (2013) London's Olympics legacy facesearly disqualification [Online] <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/jul/21/london-2012-olympics-architecture-legacy> (consulted at January 5, 2014)

WCED (1987) Our common future. Brundlandt Report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Wilder, M. (2010) Political and economic apertures and the shifting state-citizen relationship: reforming Mexico’s

national water policy. Ecology and society, 15(2): 22-37.Wüstenhagen, R., Wolsink, M. & Bürer, M. (2007) Social acceptance of renewable energy innovation: an introduc-

tion to the concept. Energy Policy, 35: 2683-2691.XML Architects (2012) Olympic Cities. Amsterdam: Jubels. commissioned by Ministery of Infrastructure and En-

vironmental.Young, O. (1964) A survey of general systems theory. General Systems, 9: 61-80.Yugian, W. (2012) Empty Nest syndrome for post-Olympics Beijing. [Online] < http://english.caixin.com/2012-07-

25/100414963.html> (consulted at December 9, 2013)Zakus, D. & Skinner, J. (2008) Modelling Organizational Change in the International Olympic Committee, Euro-

pean Sport Management Quarterly, 8(4): 421-442.

82

Zuidema, C. (2013) Post-Contingency: Stimulating Local Environmental Policy. Farnham: Ashgate

Interviews/presentations during the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference:Cartalis, C. (2013) Mega (sport) events as catalysts for sustainable urbanization? Case study of the Olympic Games

Athens (2004). Presentatin at the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference, September 5, 2013.Coleman, N. (2013) London 2012 Games and their legacy. Presentation at the UEL Olympic Legacy Conference,

September 4, 2013Vlachos, P. (2013) The Olympics ans small businesses: preliminary findings. London: London Centre for Events

Management Business School [Online] <http://www.surrey.ac.uk/shtm/Files/The%20Olympics%20and%20Small%20Business.pdf> Presentation at UEL Olympic Legacy Conference, September 6, 2013.

83

Part VI: Appendices

Source: www.olympic.org/photos

85

Appendix 1 New Olympic system

The processOn Friday November 1st, 2013, together with Janneke van der Horst, I transformed the Olympic system towards a revised system. We started with the sketch of the current system as presented by Chappelet & Kübler-Mabbott (2008). This together with the structure of the Olympic Movement from Theodoraki (2007) are the grey aspects in drawing 1. The colored arrows represent the arrows how they ought to be in my opinion, based on the literature. After adding the arrows in 1, this is rearranged in drawing 2 and finally in drawing 3. Drawing 3 is after that digitally sketched (and changed on some minor aspects), and is visible in chapter 6.

Here, we started with the distinction between the regulators (WADA & CAS) and other stakeholders. This because they have a control function and they should be positioned above all parties. Both regulators have contacts with the governments & NGOs; and the IOC about the rules they have to control. They have now connection with international sponsors. They do have a connection with the Ifs about the established rules and about the funding of the regulators. In drawing 3, these are the dark green arrows. The arrows towards the regulators represent the funding.

The Olympic Movement and the OCOGs are the central drivers and thereby stakeholders in the whole system, be-cause it all is about the distribution and promotion of the Olympism, by organizing the Olympic Games. These both are separated because of the different interests they have. The Olympic Movement is more focused on the promotion and distribution and the OCOG are more focused on the Games and the development of the city. The typical aspect of the sustainable development of the Games is important in the new structure. This will become a task of the Olympic Movement.

On the right side of drawing 3, there are the Ifs, as the stakeholder who establishes the rules of the game, sport specific. Therefore it has connections with the Olympic Movement and the OCOG’s but also with athletes about the develop-ments and changes in their specific sport.

The sponsors, international and national, will both get an other position in the system. The international sponsors have a major position nowadays with the TOP-program. With this revision, the local power of people and companies are becoming more important. Local and national initiatives and companies have a more humankind connection to the local environment in which the Games are organized. This will not say that international sponsors are bad by defini-tion, but have to decrease in power and size.

The governments and NGOs only have a role in the approval towards the OCOGs and the OCOG have take responsi-bility for the public money. In here the government have a bit higher position, but not on the same level as the Olym-pic Movement. The NOCs in this respect have a responsibility towards the Olympic Movement and the IOC and the government. These are all arrows in line of money and the associated responsibility. The NOCs also have a connection with the NSFs: the athletes. The Leagues of pro athletes are something, which does no longer fits in the system. The

86

vast majority of the athletes competing in the Olympics are to a certain scale professionals. Why keep sports as tennis and soccer in the Olympics if the sporters don’t really like it.

This together results in a new kind of structure of the Olympic system, see drawing 3 and Figure #Ch6.

drawing 1:

87

drawing 2

Drawing 3

88

Appendix 2: Olympic revenues

• Revenues from competition tickets: An important aspect for the citizens and tourist, but only 15% ($1,238 mil-lion) in the last four years. It is not expected to grow, stadiums will not grow much bigger, this will be a larger problem for the legacy.

• Revenues from broadcasting rights: A major part of the revenues. 48%, $3.850 million in the last four year. This is grown enormously is the last 20 years, and it is questionable what the developments will be. The London Olympics were the first with high numbers of live streams and online views, this can undermine the position of the televi-sion. The percentage of people watching the Games live (5-7 million) is tiny in relation to the people watching the Games on television (3.6 billion in London 2012) (IOC, 2012). The online video streaming becomes more popular on a high speed; in 2012 1.9 billion video views (IOC, 2012). The worldwide expectations are that these will expand with huge amounts the next couple of Olympiads, so this can be a problem for the future of the business model.

• Sponsorships: This pillar is divided in two parts, the TOP program sponsors ($950 million), and the national OCOG sponsors ($1,838 million). They pay a lot of money to be linked on the Olympics, or on the Olympic rings, they have the power to abandon other, small entrepreneurs (Vlachos, forthcoming). It is impossible to prove, but there are stories that the sponsors do have influence in the decision-making. For example: the 100 years anniversa-ry of the Olympics Games were not celebrate in Athens, but in Atlanta, the city with he headquarter of Coca Cola, one of the TOP sponsors; the discovery of new markets is new is not just in the interest of the IOC, but also for sponsors like Omega, Coca Cola and Mc Donalds is it attractive to achieve a larger market share in Asia or South America.

• Licensing revenues: a really tiny part of the complete revenues, only $170 million dollars, 1,2%, which does not make that much sense. For the tourist it is nice that they can buy some product with the Olympic rings on it, but this will not grow that much for the future.

89

Appendix 3: Interviews

Appendix 3a: Verslag interview Jurryt van de Vooren18 december 2013, Olympisch Stadion, Amsterdam

Welke ontwikkeling heeft het IOC doorgemaakt sinds haar oprichting?Elke fase van de Olympische geschiedenis, 25 Olympische Spelen zijn op te delen in 5 fases van 5 Olympische Spelen, dus van periodes van 20 jaar.• De 1e fase zijn de Spelen voor WOI. IOC nog niet zo sterk. Politiek niet zo belangrijk. Nu bekende symbolen

bestonden nog niet, alleen motto uit die tijd.• Tussen 2 WO. Symboliek breekt door, sport zorgt voor verbroedering. Vereeni-ging van landen centraal. Symbol-

iek wringt omdat niet meer van deze tijd is.• 3e periode Koude Oorlog, tot 1964. Sovjet-Unie deed vanaf 1952 weer mee, in teken strijd tussen oost en west.

Kolonisatie belangrijk, groter en politieker.• 4e periode 1968-1984 in teken van studentenopstand (1968), terrorisme (1972), financiële debacle (1976) en boy-

cots (1980/84). Na 1980 leek het klaar. Ommekeer in 1984. LA enige kandidaat, wel voorwaarden: commercieel, met beroepssporters, private financiering en met stijgende televisierechten.

• 1988-2000 is de 5e periode. Wordt echt mega event, zware belasting voor stad en vanaf die tijd ook corruptie. • De 6e vanaf 2004, definitief in teken van terrorisme. Beveiliging gelijk aan totale kosten 1972. Ook periode waarin

presidenten en staatshoofden invliegen om zo veel mogelijk handjes te schudden om beslissing te forceren.Dat Spelen te groot zijn is niet voor het eerst. Ook in 1928 en 1968 is erover gesproken Rogge zei dit als een van de eerste dingen bij aantreden. Bach zegt dit nu ook, verwacht hier niet veel van. Kijkend naar Sochi, Bach heeft belangen bij Gazprom, zijn verkiezing heeft met Sochi te maken. IOC wordt meer speelbal van zichzelf, kunnen er niks meer aan doen. Sochi wordt Berlijn 1936 onze tijd. IOC heeft iets gemaakt wat groter is dan zichzelf. Dus verwacht geen Spelen in 2028. Omdat Sochi en Rio ontwricht. Sport laat maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid liggen. 2028 omdat 2021 congres is waarbij er voor 2028 besloten wordt. Eerst na 2016, eerste verhalen zullen fantastisch zijn, later zal dit slechter worden.

Hoe denk je dat de toekomst eruit zal zien?Aantal zaken zullen veranderen: Uitzendrechten lopen in 2020 af, zal door livestreams niet controleerbaar zijn, huidige voorzitter komt uit oude Olympische wereld, zal voordeel zijn. Gaat een hoop veranderen, aantal opties:- Spelen gaat kapot en een evenement als de X-Games vervangt het;- Bedrijf als Red Bull, organiseert en zelf ook sponsor dus kan beslissen;- Maatschappelijk bewustzijn dat sport iets wil veranderen,

De Olympische Spelen hebben zicht de afgelopen decennia enorm ontwikkeld, is het IOC hierin meegegaan?Het IOC had eerst alleen verantwoordelijkheid voor Zomerspelen. Spelen van Tokyo, voor eerst echt op tv, door sat-ellietbeelden. Nu meer oneven jaren opzoeken met nieuwe evenementen. IOC heeft meer belangen heeft dan sport

90

alleen: geldstromen groot belang, geen onafhankelijke koepel meer. Legacy wordt antwoord op oude ideologie.

Welke rol heeft duurzaamheid gespeeld in deze ontwikkeling?Niet zo hoopvol. Sydney was drama, weinig verwachtingen Rio, vraag wat echte resultaten London zijn. IOC zal pas wat aan gaan doen als het de bedrijfsvoering aantast. We moeten vooral niet democratie en onze normen en waarden via het IOC gaan spelen. Drie bekendste symbolen van onze tijd zijn de dollar, het kruis en de Olympische ringen. Om de eerste 2 wordt oorlog gevoerd, de derde heeft zorgt voor vrede. Dus blijkbaar is er toch iets bijzonders aan.

Appendix 3b: Verslag Interview Herbert Wolff26 november 2013, Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Wat is je belangrijkste leerpunt vanuit je ervaring in London?Samenwerking met LOCOG sponsoren (BMW, BP, EDF) in relatie tot sustainability lastig. Geen concrete afspraken voor de stand op het Olympisch Park. Specifiek sustainability bij veel bedrijven lastig. Duurzaam maakt het ook com-plex. Creativiteit en verbinding vormen de sleutel. Met name verbinding tussen partijen die elkaar niet kennen. Het werk van LOCOG werd beoordeeld door een externe organisatie, deze had als taak monitoring. Zij kwamen echter ook met adviezen, wat veranderde in kritiek als er niet iets mee gedaan werd. Splitsing van deze rollen is gewenst.Andere partijen hebben een invloed op het proces.

Specifiek kijkend naar het legacy/duurzaamheid, dus lange termijn perspectief?80/90% van alle sustainability maatregelen waren voor de Olympische Spelen geplant, en niet voor daarna. Er is wel een positieve legacy van het Olympisch Park die overgebleven is: o.a. het verschonen van het water en het terugbrengen van inheemse planten en vissen in het park. Sustainability was puur voor de Olympische Spelen, alle mensen die daarmee bezig waren zijn nu weg, niet bezig met legacy, geen sustainability planning. Ook wat betreft het stadion ingehaald door de tijd. Niet flexibel om van 25.000 zitplaatsen naar 50.000 aan te passen. Meer flexibiliteit gewenst.

In hoeverre was London gevangen in het organiser-contract van het IOC?Het IOC laat zich hierin leidden door OCOG. Sustainability kwam vanuit London. Het IOC heeft dit na London aangepast omdat het beviel. Voor 2020 kwam dit in de evaluatiecommissie. Van daaruit is het IOC zelf een plan gaan ontwikkelen. Dit verschilt per land en dus per context.

Zou er hier naar jou idee een ontwikkeling gewenst zijn?Verandering zal meevallen. Het probleem van omkoping is volledig opgelost, verschillende belangen spelen nog wel. Bidcampagne kost te veel geld.

Hoe schat je de invloed van de nieuwe voorzitter van het IOC in?

91

Focus op sporters: doping, match fixing, minder spelen. Vermoeden mensen rechten, mens centraal, menselijke maat die terugkomt

Wat is naar jou idee de betekenis van het terugtrekken van München voor 2022?Bach zei verheugd te zijn dat er 5 kandidaten zijn, dat is een goede ontwikkeling. Davos en Munchen zijn zorgelijk. In Munchen ging het met name om duurzaamheid en de natuur.

Wat is naar jou idee de rol van het IOC in de ruimtelijke ordening van een gast stad? IOC heeft hierop geen invloed. Compacte spelen, goede ov-verbindingen en voldoende hotels. Stad kijkt hoe dit te realiseren, kunnen het ook niet doen, kan ook deels voldoen. Verleiding is keuze van de stad.

Welke rol zou dit moeten spelen voor de toekomst?Blijft wel, wel met golfbeweging. Heeft veel te maken met spelen die net geweest zijn. Spelen zijn de baby van het IOC. Hoe zorg voor een kind van een ander.

Appendix 3c: Verslag interview Thysia Pater12 december 2013, Skype

Wat is je belangrijkste leerpunt vanuit je ervaring in London?Grote organisatie, dat je eigenlijk goed moet samenwerken en afstemmen. Alle verschillende onderdelen en vrijwil-ligers moeten goed met elkaar afstemmen.

Specifiek kijkend naar het legacy/duurzaamheid, dus lange termijn perspectief?Mijn rol voornamelijk met vip, BMW’s, niet specifiek leerpunt. Gebouwen en stadions is mooi nieuw stuk, is veel ver-beterd, de legacy daarin is heel goed. Legacy als event voor 2 weken, niet tastbare kant is er nog niet zo. Sportpartici-patie is niet echt grote vooruitgang geboekt. Hype in 2 weken, 24/7, na een maand is die aandacht weg en die aandacht wordt vervolgens verlegd. Heeft mensen na elkaar gebracht, hype tot eind 2012. Gevoel wordt nog herkent, maar is er niet meer.

In hoeverre was London gevangen in het organiser-contract van het IOC?Gevangen? Lastig. Veel vrijheid, IOC alleen overkoepelend. Overziet, bekijkt vanaf de buitenkant, verantwoordeli-jkheid ligt bij LOCOG, Uiteindelijk IOC. Politiek spel is hierin ook belangrijk. Natuurlijk richtlijnen, transport, hoe het werkte, daarin was wel enige vrijheid. Veel verschillende diensten van vervoer, eerst heel streng, door ervaring blijkt dat je flexibel kan zijn, kortsluiting met IOC weet ik niet.

Wat is naar jou idee de rol van de sustainability ambitie binnen de Olympische beweging, en daarbij specifiek wat betreft transport?

92

London & Vancouver, zoeken naar sustainability van openbaar vervoer. BMW had hierin wel de sustainability kant. Denk aan de start-stop systemen. Kan nog beter door meer mensen in de auto te krijgen. In hoeverre dat mogelijk is weet ik niet. Kleine dingetjes als tasjes bij winkels niet over na gedacht, iedere vrijwilliger kreeg bidon, werd gebruikt. In grote lijn veel aan gedaan, op kleine dingen nog hoop te winnen.

Welke rol zou legacy moeten spelen voor de toekomst? Steeds belangrijker, niet alleen voor land zelf, maar ook voor steun inwoners. Zeker nu, mensen kritischer om uitgaven en inkomsten. Als je als inwoner extra betaald, wil je iets voor terugzien. Iedereen trots, niet iedereen had kans om iets te zien. Iedereen herinnert zich, maar in oost London betalen ze nog steeds veel geld om te leven, is niet veranderd. IOC zou daar strikter op moeten zitten om in de hand te houden. Paar maanden voor spelen was stadion in gebruik, afbraak en gebruik voor community duurt lang. Het teruggeven moet hier een plan voor hebben. Gevoel van 2012 moet warm gehouden worden. Leeft nu niet meer zo erg. IOC: strengere bid procedure. Meeste werknemers kwamen minder dan jaar van tevoren. Veel contracten lopen af direct na de Spelen. Dit verlengen is belangrijk. Aanloop heel belangrijk, after sales nog belangrijker, hier is veel te winnen.

Wat de positieve punten vanuit London die meegenomen moeten worden naar de toekomst?- Gamesmaker: vrijwilligers en het management daarin.- Financieel, als enige wel positief uitkomen ten opzichte van een verlies.- Hele organisatie, punctualiteit, alles begon op tijd en was goed geregeld.

Wat zijn de negatieve punten die verbeterd moeten wordenEchte londonaren, nog steeds 50/50, nog niet iedereen was mee. London wil graag een fietsstad worden, waarom dan zo veel investeren in de tube?Meer kijken naar toekomstambities na 2012. Er is eigenlijk niet verder dan 2012 gekeken.

Appendix 3d: Verslag Interview Willem de Boer26 november 2013, Utrecht

Wat is je idee over de huidige economische belangen binnen het IOC?Het IOC is eigenlijk een monopolist maar ook multinational. Het is een monopsoniey: er is 1 aanbieder (van in dit geval de OS), er zijn meerdere vragers (om die OS te hosten). Blijft verbazend dat het uit komt qua kosten en opbreng-sten, er wordt in deze tijden meer kritisch naar gekeken. Worst is blijkbaar nog steeds te groot om te laten liggen. Is fascinerend en verbazend vanuit economisch perspectief. De time-gap tussen kosten en opbrengsten is wel interessant

Welke belangen spelen hier verder een belangrijke rol?Net zo breed als maatschappij. De legacy van London is misschien wel concept ‘legacy’. Uitwerking niet goed: sportpar-ticipatie, renovatie wijk (ook zonder OS), nationale trots ebt weg. Achtergrond redenen daarachter heel moeilijk, imago

93

middenlange termijn kan veranderen, vraag is of je dat wil bereiken.

Wat is naar jou idee een te verwachten ontwikkeling?Legacy blijft plakken, organisatie is meer dan alleen organisatie feest, 75% bevolking ziet nut, mag ook wat kosten. Beleid gaat wel traag, toch sprake van een time-lag van ongeveer 10 jaar. IOC probeert hierin semi-maatschappelijk belang te behartigen. Iets democratischer zou niet gek zijn. 3 Nederlanders tot voor kort is opmerkelijk veel.

Wat zouden de gevolgen zijn van in stappen radicaal omgooien van de Olympische Beweging volgens de transiti-etheorie van Jan Rotmans?Ligt eraan welke kant je op wil. Lokaal kan er heel veel: draag vlak, beperking kosten. Ergens manier voorwaarts zou je denken. Prijs kan opgedreven worden door aantrekkelijkheid. Nu: beperkt aantal landen. Dan: goedkoper, meer interesse, macht en belangen worden niet per se minder. MKBA’s zouden beter moeten.London: wat zou je max willen betalen om het te krijgen? Wat om het niet te krijgen? Willingness to pay/to accept. Nauwelijks onderzoek naar gedaan naar dat laatste.Vraag is of legacy excuustruus is, of dat het echt wat oplevert. Nu beetje lege huls. OGI moet eigenlijk omgedraaid worden, wat beklijft er daadwerkelijk?Rol IOC is dubbelzijdig: zichzelf in stand houden, zichzelf een maatschappelijke rol toedichten, wat houdt dat in? IOC biedt iets aan, verschillende steden willen product, stad is verantwoordelijk voor alle zaken buiten sport. Spelen soms zelfde belangen, soms andere.

Wat zouden de gevolgen zijn van een lokaal en bottom up organisatie van de Olympische Spelen?IOC kan niet lokaal werven, wel wereldwijd. Lokaal feestje moet wel internationale allure uitstraling houden met merken die mensen aanspreken. Beleving van groot belang, maar ook andere kant van de wereld. OS is hierin ongeëve-naard, voor groot gedeelte televisie evenement. Oude instituties zijn niet snel omver te halen, problemen los je niet op door opnieuw te beginnen.

Bastiaan

Bretveld

Master th

esis: Toward

s Olym

pic G

ames 3.0

Towards Olympic Games 3.0Master thesis

Student: Bastiaan Bretveld | January 2014 | Master Environmental & Infrastructure Planning | University of Groningen, Faculty of Spatial Sciences | Supervisor: Dr. C. Zuidema7074277812919

ISBN 978-1-291-70742-790000